Friday Links

Trailer for the Ender’s Game movie! W00t!

Not sure what I think yet…could be good, but I’m not 100% sold. We’ll see.

robobee

Harvard’s created a flying robot, modeled loosely on insect anatomy, no larger than a quarter. Extremely light, highly mobile, potentially very cheap. Details and video!

yay text

A short essay proposing dead children as a unit of currency. The thesis is deliberately shocking, but he’s making a real (and kind-hearted) point about charity and opportunity costs. This is actually fairly close to the way I think about things, and it gets to the heart of my post on Monday, The Perils of Virtue.

quadrotor

xkcd proposes an alternate use for quadrotors.

dark hanners

And Questionable Content turns to the Dark Side. Uh, briefly.

That’s that, Hypothetical Reader. You may be a construct of my solipsistic hallucinations, but I like you all the same. This weekend, go forth and be excellent, and we’ll meet again three days hence!

Brian Buys a Unicycle

For a long time, I’ve thought it would be cool to know how to unicycle. Probably for the same reason I learned how to juggle: chicks dig it. (NOTE. This is not accurate.)

Last week, I was at the park (outside!) with a group of friends, and one of them brought a unicycle. He rode it around a little, and the rest of us tried to. To get an idea of our success rate, imagine a herd of antelope learning to touch-type, and that should get you pretty close. Still, I had fun, and was fascinated by this one-wheeled monstrosity.

I had to have one.

After doing a little research, I ordered this bad boy…and then waited. Yesterday, it arrived.

Not pictured: my neighbors pointing at me and saying "Why the hell is he photographing a cardboard box?"

Not pictured: my neighbors pointing at me, saying “Why the hell is he photographing a cardboard box?”

Bubbly as a can of Faygo, I carted my prize to the back of the house to assemble it.

Carrot-flavored, my favorite.

Carrot-flavored, my favorite.

The instructions said it could be assembled in 15 minutes. Knowing my own technical expertise, I mentally adjusted this to “four days,” but in the end I was surprisingly successful. Using a couple of wrenches from my wife’s toolbox, and making a quick run to the local Speedway to inflate the tire, I got it together in about an hour.

And here she is:

Shown in the vertical position. In my experience, the horizontal orientation is more frequent.

Shown in the vertical orientation. In my experience, horizontal is more realistic.

If the seat seems pretty high up, it’s because I am freakishly tall.

Sadly I don’t have any pictures (yet) of me trying to ride it. Betsy was away at the time, and the list of Ways To Make Unicycle-Riding Easier does not include Trying To Take a Picture of Yourself While Doing It. But my method’s pretty simple: find something to lean against for stability (like a tree, or a bench) and get on the seat, pushing down on one pedal to steady yourself. Then put your other foot on the other pedal, find your balance, release your support, and go.

Experiments thus far have shown the “and go” step to be significantly more difficult than the others. I do in fact go, but the direction is mostly earthward.

It’s pretty clear, when you’re sitting on a unicycle, that this is not something God intended humans to ride. A little-known fact about unicycles is that they only have one wheel. When you’re watching someone else unicycling, it looks cool; when you’re trying to do it yourself, you wonder if you might be mildly retarded.

My friend said he never got hurt learning to unicycle. You fall a lot, he said, but since your instinct is to put out your feet, you generally don’t fall down.

This was, of course, a transparent lie. I had my first legit fall after about two dozen tries:

unicycle fail

I admit this is not a very badass scratch. But give it time.

I love it anyway. Can’t wait to try it again tonight!

On Saying Goodbye

The snow has not yet fallen. Our intertwined
fingers find needful solace
in the tightness of affection;
and delaying the kiss
that will end it, I perceive
that love is like sleeping.
My dreams glide into yours
and meet in the halo of our intertwined
vision – I am sleeping,
and though I know that December
apart is livable (for I have breathed
the icy air before, and found it
non-toxic) – though I know this, I delay,
clinging to the melting moments of our intertwined
whispers – for, like any sleeper,
what I fear is not consciousness, but
waking.

(I wrote this November 29, 2006.)

The Largest Living Thing in the World

My About Page claims: “I have personally seen the largest living thing in the world.”

Here’s the proof:

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge. Not that it needs to get any bigger.

I took this photo of the General Sherman Tree in Sequoia National Park, California, on June 17, 2005. It was part of a two-week road trip out west with two of my best friends, both of whom are probably reading this right now.

Sherman’s status as the largest living thing is debatable, but all other claimants to the throne are superorganisms of some kind – at least from what I’ve seen. If anyone knows a specific organism that’s bigger, I’d be interested to hear about it.

Even if there is something bigger, it’d be tough to look much more impressive.

The Perils of Virtue

What does it mean to be a good person?

Years ago, I read one of John Steinbeck’s lesser-known books, a thin novel called The Short Reign of Pippin IV. I stumbled across this passage, which struck me so keenly that I copied it down right then, and have never forgotten it:

“It is a trap,” said Sister Hyacinthe, “like all other virtue – it is a trap. Where virtue is involved it is very difficult to tell oneself the truth, M’sieur. There are two kinds of virtue. One is passionate ambition and the other simply a desire for the peace which comes from not giving anyone any trouble.”

There are, indeed, two kinds of virtue: passive and active.

Passive virtue is what Steinbeck calls not giving anyone any trouble. More recently, Wil Wheaton formulated this as Wheaton’s Law: “Don’t be a dick.” Passive virtue says you can be good merely by not being bad.

Active virtue, however – Steinbeck’s passionate ambition – is very different. For active virtue, it isn’t enough to sit back, smile, and say “I’m not hurting anyone.” Active virtue demands that we go into the world and make it better.

Our society and our laws say that passive virtue is good enough. Active virtue is optional. This makes sense – for law and society. You can’t require passionate ambition, after all.

But suppose we care about more than just following the law and doing what society expects. Suppose we hope to be something like that most mythical of creatures: the Good Person. Is passive virtue really enough?

Imagine you’re leading a caravan through the Sahara Desert. You find some poor man dying of thirst, begging you for water. You have plenty to spare. But you say “I believe in Passive Virtue. I’m not required to help. I merely avoid starting any trouble.” You move on.

Is that okay?

Of course not. In Wil Wheaton’s terms, you are Being A Dick, even though you’ve technically satisfied passive virtue. That much seems obvious.

But be careful. Because once you admit to yourself that you have a requirement – a moral obligation – to help others, the world becomes a very different place.

Before, as a follower of Passive Virtue, you could spend twenty dollars on a couple of movie tickets and popcorn. You’re not hurting anyone, so it’s okay. But Active Virtue imposes a much heavier burden. Active Virtue insists the world is full of people dying of thirst, metaphorically and literally. It says that spending twenty dollars on entertainment is like pouring out water on the sand of the Sahara.

If giving twenty dollars to Doctors Without Borders, or the aid workers in Syrian refugee camps, or [insert your charity here], could save someone’s life, and I spend it on movies anyway, what does that mean? It sounds absurd to say that buying entertainment is ethically wrong, but what other conclusion can we draw?

How can we escape the obligation to spend all our money, all our time, all our resources, on helping others? And why should we want to?

We want our lives to be easy. That’s human nature. But being a good person means active virtue; and active virtue is very, very hard.

I’m as guilty as anyone. I won’t pretend otherwise. I buy all sorts of things I don’t need.

But in quieter moments, I can hear what virtue sounds like – and it sounds awfully distant to me.

What do you think?

Friday Links

whole internet

“What Happened When One Man Pinged the Whole Internet.” Among other things: he pissed off China.

genome compiler

You’ve got your custom-written DNA source code (GATCCGTAGACCCGGA…) but turning it into a living organism is such an inconvenience. Sounds like you need a genome compiler.

robot herd

Or maybe you’d rather have an all-terrain robot (or two!) that carries your gear and follows you anywhere. Boston Dynamics has you covered – and that’s far from the only amazing robot they’ve built.

smbc

SMBC proves the Riemann Hypothesis in the most delicious way possible.

qc

And finally: the ever-classy Questionable Content. This comic has happened to me personally. More than once.

You stay classy too, Hypothetical Reader. Enjoy your weekend so hard. See you Monday!

The End of Moore’s Law

People (like me) who run around screaming “The Singularity is coming, the Singularity is coming!” build their ravings on a single foundation: the idea of exponential speed-up. Technology, we observe, isn’t just getting better faster. It’s getting better exponentially faster.

The classic example, familiar to anyone in IT, is Moore’s Law. The law is named after Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, who predicted in 1965 that the number of transistors we could fit on an integrated circuit would double about every two years.

To dumb it down a bit: he was saying that computers in 1967 would be twice as fast as the ones he was building right then; in 1969, 4x as fast; in 1971, 8x as fast. That puts the computers of 1981 at over 1,000x as fast as his present-day machines; 1991 would be 16,000x faster; and 2013 would be 33 million times faster.

Moore himself thought this trend might last only ten years or so; the staggering, impossible wonder of the computer industry is that it’s never stopped.

We must remember, though, that Moore’s Law isn’t a physical law like gravity or magnetism. It’s a prediction – a guess, really. And it’s bound to end eventually.

Just yesterday, I found an article from the MIT Technology Review called “The End of Moore’s Law?” It acknowledges the amazing, uncanny foresight of this exponential acceleration, but it cautions: “There are some good reasons to think that the party may be ending.” It goes on:

The end of Moore’s Law has been predicted so many times that rumors of its demise have become an industry joke. The current alarms, though, may be different. Squeezing more and more devices onto a chip means fabricating features that are smaller and smaller…to get there the industry will have to beat fundamental problems to which there are “no known solutions.” If solutions are not discovered quickly, Paul A. Packan, a respected researcher at Intel, argued last September in the journal Science, Moore’s Law will “be in serious danger.”

If the “sustained explosion” in processor speed does finally flicker out, then no Singularity. But will it? There’s no way to know, right?

It’s not like we can magically look a decade into the future and see what happens – right?

Actually, we can. That article was written May 1, 2000. Thirteen years later, processor speed hasn’t stopped doubling yet.

But listen: now AMD says the end of Moore’s Law is on the horizon, this time for really reals

The Robin

robin

This mother robin has sat outside our kitchen window, guarding her eggs night and day, for at least a week now. When it rains, she stretches out her wings to keep the nest dry.

What signs of spring have you noticed in your area? (Or, for our sub-Equatorial friends: signs of autumn?)

Torrid, Torpid, and Turgid

English is confusing. Pronunciations aren’t consistent, spellings are a crapshoot, synonyms run rampant.

And today, we’ve got three words that sound very similar, but mean very different things:

torrid

torpid

turgid

I get these three mixed up. Maybe you do, too.

Let’s see if we can explain.

torrid – hot, burning, passionate

“Torrid” means hot in a literal sense, like fire. It also means hot like a passionate love affair. Either way, it’s intense.

Like this:

torrid

Next up: only one letter off, but very different.

torpid – sluggish, apathetic

“Torpid” means sleepy, lazy, I-don’t-care. Now, what picture could I use…?

Ah yes.

torpid

Nobody does torpid like Garfield.

And our final word:

turgid – swollen, inflated, pompous

Again, this can mean literally swollen, like a bug bite. But it can also refer to style. A book can be turgid if it has a self-important, pretentious, inflated kind of writing.

And who’s more self-important, inflated, turgid than the Wizard of Oz?

turgid

So: torrid, torpid, and turgid.

Any questions?

How the HexBug Comes Alive

YES MINISCULE MORTALS I AM THE HEXBUG GENUFLECT IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR BETTERS

YES PATHETIC MORTALS I AM THE HEXBUG GENUFLECT IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR BETTERS

This is the HexBug Nano. I picked it up Friday from Hobby Lobby on a whim.

Sure, it looks simple. But it was only ten bucks, and I’m a sucker for robots. So I bought one.

I’m glad I did.

OBSERVE HOW YOUR TINY EAGLE QUIVERS IN MY PRESENCE UNLEASH THE SINGULARITY

OBSERVE HOW YOUR TINY EAGLE QUIVERS IN MY PRESENCE UNLEASH THE SINGULARITY

As it turns out, the creature really is simple. No assembly, no setup, no way to control it. There’s an on/off switch. That’s it.

What’s more, the robot has no moving parts except a buzzing, vibrating motor in its belly.

That vibration is all it can do. The legs are just rubber attached to the body. There’s no mechanical control there. It doesn’t even have any sensors.

SCRATCH MAH BELLAH

SCRATCH MAH BELLAH

So what can a toy that simple possibly do?

Just watch:

Watch how it skitters across the floor with a slight back-and-forth motion, as if hunting for food. Watch how it seems to avoid walls. Watch how, when I flip it over, it thrashes around till it’s upright again.

Two things about this.

First, it’s an ingenious piece of engineering. It may look simple, but getting the precise shape of the legs to keep it moving forward – the angled head so it turns when it hits a wall – the shape of the back so it flips over when necessary – that represents hundreds of man-hours of design work.

Second, for all its clever craftsmanship, it’s still orders of magnitude less sophisticated than a real insect. A real insect can seek food, evade predators, adapt to its environment, mate, reproduce, and a thousand other things. The HexBug Nano does none of that. And yet, when I watch it in motion, my brain says: That’s a bug!

Why?

Our brains love imparting life and agency to everything we see. If it moves, it’s alive. If it moves unexpectedly, it’s thinking. That’s how we process the world around us.

This human tendency to bestow life on the unliving is a blessing and a curse for A.I. developers. A blessing, because it makes even simple features seem impressive, at least initially. A curse, because we can easily fool ourselves into thinking a piece of software – or even hardware –  is smarter than it really is. We always have to be vigilant against that.

Fortunately, the HexBug isn’t SkyNet just yet.