Category Archives: Uncategorized

Creepy places to be

Google is creepy. Facebook, I heard is creepy. Maybe you don’t know yet but Firefox is creepy. Twitter is a creepy bad joke. Hacker News is creepy by omission, if that matters to anybody.

If you want to talk then mail me at one of the addresses down the first page of this article.  Or open an issue at one of my repositories. Or come see me. Or let me see you.

See you 🙂

 

Advertisements

What I expect from 2018 (to be updated at the end of 2018)

In the About section I wrote: “This blog contains ideas from the future”. Well let me look into my crystal ball. Then, at the end of 2018 I shall update this post and compare.

This is about stuff I expect to do in 2018, and stuff I expect to happen in 2018, or even things I hope to happen in 2018.

Before that a short review of what I think is significant to remember at the end of 2017.

  • all soft and hard is wrecked beyond any paranoid dream. There is nothing we can trust. Trust does not exist any more, as an effect.
  • in particular there is no trust in deterministic randomness 😉 so boy, how safe are your bitcoins…
  • all corporate Net is dead for the few intelligent people, but in the same time many discover the Net today and they love it! It is the new TV, don’t tell me that you expect from TV to be interactive. You hold the remote, but otherwise you “Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from“.
  • corporate Net is hands in in hands with the legacy publishers, because of a simple reason: science brings authority, so you don’t mess with science dissemination. If you mess with it then you question authority, or in this human world there is nothing else than authority which keeps things going as expected.

Now, what I expect to do in 2018:

  • write articles in the classic arXiv style, short if possible, with programs repositories if possible (projected: NN, space, thermodynamics, engineering, computing)
  • if these articles (on new subjects! or on older subjects but with new techniques) make wou want to change the world to gether then I exist in the meatspace, 3d version and I welcome you to visit me or me to visit you, all else is futile
  • shall do mostly mathematics, but you know the thing about mathematics…

What I expect to happen in 2018:

  • the Net will turn in TV completely
  • “content creators”, i.e. those morons who produce the lowest possible quality (lack of) content for TV and cinema, will be fucked by big data. It is enough to get all the raw cinema footage and some NN magic in order to deliver, on individual demand, content better than anything those media professional morons can deliver. And of course much cheaper, therefore…
  • I expect a big fat nice money bubble to burst, because money laundering is a fundamental part of the actual economy

What I hope to happen in 2018:

  •  new hardware
  • real meatspace randomness devices
  • more distributed automata (like bitcoin) to suck up the economy
  • diversification, because not anybody can be among the handful of deep state corporate beings.

OK, what do you think? Lay here your forecast, if you wish… or dare.

Open Science: “a complete institution for the use of learners”

The quote is from 1736. You can see it on the front page of the book “The method of fluxions and infinite series” by Newton, “translated from the author’s Latin original not yet made publick” (nobody is perfect, we know now where this secrecy led in the dispute with Leibniz over the invention of the differential calculus).

newton

That should be the goal of any open science research output.

What we have at the end of 2017?

  • Sci-hub. Pros: not corporate. It does not matter where you output your article, as long as it becomes available to any learner. Cons:  only old style articles, not more. So not a full solution.
  • ArXiv. Pros: simple, proved to be reliable long term. Cons: only articles.
  • Zenodo. Pros: not corporate, lots of space for present needs. Cons: not playable.
  • Github. Pros: good for publicly and visibly share and discuss over articles and programs. Cons: corporate, not reliable in the long term.
  • Git in general. Pros: excellent tool.
  • Blockchain. Pros: excellent tool.

I have not added anything about BOAI inspired Open Access because it is something from the past. It was just a trick to delay the demise of legacy publishing style, it was done over the heads of researchers, basically a deal between publishers and academic managers, for them to be able to siphon research $  and stiffle the true open access movement.

Conclusion: at the moment there are only timid and partial proposals for open science as “a complete institution for the use of learners”. Open science is not a new idea. Open science is the natural way to do science.

There is only one way to do it: share. Let’s do it!

If you ask me “are there news re your work in mathematics and computation?” then the answer is

Yes!

See you in 2018, but unless something fundamental changes and replaces social media, I believe that I’ll use more classical channels. My experiments with open science and social media are essentially done, at least that’s what I believe. That is because corporations do not provide commons for the scientific data. I thought that this can be tweaked, socially hacked, but no. Now I’m over it, actually since the last summer. There are more interesting things to do, which I can do independently, like figuring some things about statistics and randomness, in a different way. There is now a growing tangle of threads which seem to bundle a lot of past work into an interesting image, but who cares, words are cheap, mathematics is eternal, if it’ll work then I’ll tell you.

Have a nice year and don’t think too much about the hodl thing, unless you can do something concrete, in your own different way, which can change some concrete aspect of this world.

Whatever 🙂

 

 

Genocide as a win-win situation

Imagine. A company appears in your town and starts by making the public place more welcoming. Come play, says the company, come talk, come here and have fun. Let us help you with everything: we’ll keep your memories, traditions, we’ll take care to remind you about that friend you lost track some years ago. We’ll spread your news to everybody, we’ll get customers for your business. Are you alone? No problem, many people are like you, what if you could talk and meet them, whenever you want?

We don’t want anything important, says the company, just let us put some ads in the public place. It’s a win-win situation. Your social life will get better and we’ll make profit from those ads.

Hey, what if you let us manage your photos? All that stuff you want to keep, but there’s too more of it and it’s hard for you to preserve. We’ll put it on a cloud. Clouds are nice, those fluffy things which pass over your head in a sunny morning, while you, or your kids play together in the public place.

Remember how it was before? The town place was not at all as alive as now. You had not as many friends as now, your memories were less safe. Let us take care about all your cultural self.

Let us replace the commons. We are the commons of the future. We, the company…

We’ll march together and right all wrongs. Organize yourselves by using the wonderful means we give you. Control the politicians! Keep an eye on those public contracts. Do you have abusive neighbours? Shame their bad habits in the public place.

The public place of the future. Kindly provided by us, the company. A win-win situation.

 

Transparency is superior to trust

I am fascinated by this quote. I think it’s the most beautiful quote, in it’s terseness, I’ve seen since a long time. Wish I invented it!

It is not, though, the motto of Wikileaks, it’s taken from the section on Reproducibility of this Open Science manifesto.

To me, this quote means that validation is superior to peer review.

It is also significant that the quote says nothing about the publishing aspects of Open Science. That is because, I believe, we should split publishing from the discussion about Open Science.

Publishing, scientific publishing I mean, is simply irrelevant at this point. The strong part of Open Science, the new, original idea it brings forth is validation.

Sci-Hub acted as the great leveler, as concerns scientific publication. No interested reader cares, at this point, if an article is hostage behind a paywall or if the author of the article paid money for nothing to a Gold OA publisher.

Scientific publishing is finished. You have to be realistic about this thing.

But science communication is a far greater subject of interest. And validation is one major contribution to a superior scientific method.

The Library of Alexandra

“Hint: Sci-Hub was created to open papers that are not available online at all. You cannot find these papers in Google or in open access” [tweet by @Sci_Hub]

“Public Resource will make extracts of the Library of Alexandra available shortly, will present the issues to publishers and governments.” [tweet by Carl Malamud]