Plodding

 I feel like I'm moving slowly through resistance. I'm using computers more than in the past, but only making progress at a snail-like pace. I have improved a little. I got my grandsons' savings money moved into an investment account. I got a new laptop, though I haven't even tried to transfer files from the old laptop to the new one. I think I need to do that, because some of the files on the old laptop include bank statements, which I may be asked to share again in future. That's why I have them downloaded onto the laptop.

Are there any algorithms watching me? Do they know I save bank statements and keep track of my 401K and my grandsons' investment accounts? Do they know what I do for work, using computer-based testing, now with remote proctoring software included? And that my lectures are on Zoom, along with my review sessions for students? I don't have them on my machines, but there is now a whole batch of recordings showing the actions of all our students taking exams, one at a time. The files can show the students' answers along side their faces. What might an algorithm make from that?

I have learned that the Artificial Intelligence system that analyzes the recordings has limits in perception. It says a student is "off camera" when only the top half of the head can be seen. I can tell the student is still there, because I can see the top of the head, but the AI report says the student is not there. So the AI has some developing to do if it wants to catch up to a simple human like me in proctoring a student taking a test. Seeing these sorts of weaknesses in the tech makes me think the singularity is not very close. I understand that a supercomputer can now be programmed to beat any human at chess consistently. The same is true of some other games involving strategies. But ordinary things like determining if a student is trying to cheat on a test does not seem to be within a computer's power for now.

Of course, we're dealing with software from a company that has clients all around the country with a wide range of needs, and not a dedicated supercomputer. Maybe a system could be made that could monitor anyone taking a test in a designated location, and could accurately read all actions, gestures, sounds, and movements of the test-taker, if provided with sensors for sound and visuals from multiple points of view. But a school like where I work could never afford such a system. I don't think anyone could, except for a sort of stunt, like the chess challenge. After the victory, the supercomputer was repurposed for some other task, so the best chess players on the planet are now just program files in storage somewhere. Our knowledge that they could be revived affects our thinking about chess and computers, even though they may not be currently in operation. So the potential of such systems is as important as the daily activities of current algorithms.

But none of those potential tools seem to be making things easier for me. I'm still slogging through work the way I have much of my life, and I don't see it getting easier or faster in a time frame that will affect my career. So I will keep plodding for another decade and a bit, and then find something else to do that maybe feels less like work.

Another Grim Milestone

 Some months ago, President Trump was giving himself credit for such great work in the face of the pandemic of Covid-19, talking about how keeping deaths in the United States to around 200,000 was a remarkable achievement. It wasn't, and it didn't happen.

According to Worldometers website, the US passed 400,000 deaths a few days ago. According to Johns Hopkins coronavirus pages, we're at 398,000 today, so we will pass 400,000 today or tomorrow, at current rates. Some experts have predicted we will reach 500,000 deaths by the end of next month, still well before we make much progress in getting the whole population vaccinated.

I looked at the graph of new cases by day from various countries on the Johns Hopkins website, and was struck, again, by the glaring difference between the United States and most of the other countries. Our graph is the worst, and we have no competition for the title.

I expect there are a number of reasons, but the obvious one is that President Trump and his team are incompetent. The president also contributed to resistance to recommendations like wearing a mask in public and social distancing. His followers, who share his lack of knowledge, attacked such measures as weak, as tyrannical, and as political. They decided that calling for public safety measures was an attack on the president.

At my work, we follow the recommendations. We wear masks all the time when around other people, and we limit time on campus as much as we can. So far as I have heard, we have not had any reports of infections on campus. We have a frightening number of students with infections. I have had ten percent of my students in isolation, either with positive Covid tests, or with symptoms and awaiting test results. Ten percent in two weeks of classes. Some have been quite sick. I find it troubling that anyone would believe that the safety measures are based in politics, or are unnecessary.

The numbers in this country didn't have to be as bad as they are. Competent leadership could have kept the numbers down. A lot. In the face of this, it is a scary thought that a country like this gets the government it deserves.

Finding Limits

 Restrictions imposed due to the pandemic have resulted in adjustments in how classes are run, and expanded use of technology. In the Spring, during the first lockdown, my classes were made entirely remote, but as we had little advance time to prepare, we didn't have remote proctoring set up for giving exams and quizzes. I was surprised that the averages on the tests I gave were not much higher than usual, but there are a lot of possible explanations for that. By the time we got to final exams, some restrictions had been eased, and we had students come to campus for proctored finals. Averages dropped like rocks.

We could conclude that our students were "cheating" during the unproctored exams. Although they had to take the exam at the scheduled time, and had limited time to complete the exam, there was no way to limit access to textbooks or other resources. We also expect that some student copied the questions. Easy to do using a phone. So is searching the Internet for answers if you can use your phone during the test. Students couldn't do that for the finals. But if that is the reason, then why weren't the test averages higher on the midterm tests?

I have an alternate theory for why the final exam averages were so low. I think the students were under stress, having to return to school, and being around teachers they didn't really know. Some of my students are in their first quarter, so they don't know the campus, either. I expect that contributed to the lower scores. But I don't discount the effect of the loss of all that access to course resources during the midterms.

Now we are again giving remote tests, which we didn't do in Summer or Fall. We tried a kind of hybrid lecture, with some students opting to attend lectures remotely, and some live on campus, but tests were all live. That was hard for some students, because of travel times. It meant that on the days of tests, everyone had to be on campus pretty much all day, so there were only a few days when the students who chose the remote option could actually stay away from campus. And then Ohio went Purple. More restrictions were imposed. All lectures were remote, again, and students weren't allowed to be on campus except for the tests. Travel time became a nightmare for some. So this quarter, starting under restrictions, we found an app that works with our computer-based testing program, so we can have electronically proctored tests given remotely.

The app requires a picture of each student for a Facial Recognition app, to ensure each student is taking her own test. Another app records audio and video during the test. An AI program reviews the recordings, and creates a report, identifying any anomalies in apparent student behavior.

It sounds okay. It should mean that students take their own tests, and won't get away with using their textbooks or smart phones during the tests. If they leave the chair, they get caught. If they read the questions aloud, that is recorded, and they get caught. That is because we can't control what is in the room outside the range of the computer's camera, so we tell students they aren't allowed to read aloud.

I occurred to me that this means some algorithm will be getting pictures of all our students. And video and audio of their behavior during exams. I don't know what use an algorithm can make of such data, but I expect it could mean something at some point. What stops the test proctoring algorithm from selling the recordings to the NSA? Could this create a permanent record that could be used to identify any of our students in the future? I mean, the system uses AI. I have no idea how intelligent Artificial Intelligence can be, either now or in the future. I feel like I'm participating in a large project to share huge piles of data about thousands of people with the algorithms that may one day rule the Earth. I might be contributing to progress toward the singularity.

I am also making it safer for students to continue their studies. For now, I think that is the more important consideration. Maybe someday I'll ask what becomes of the recordings and collection of photos, but not today.

The World Isn't Ending Tomorrow

 A guy I knew in high school posted a warning on Facebook, telling the world that President Trump is going to carry out a worldwide purge beginning Sunday night. There will be text messages sent from Air Force One, and an eight hour movie. There will be filmed confessions, and mass executions. Once it's over, the world will live in peace and harmony.

I worry that he believes this stuff. He has often predicted major developments in politics and justice, with an abysmal record of accuracy. No new evidence has come to prove that the Hillary Clinton campaign worked directly with Russians to create the "Russia Hoax" that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia, for example.

But he believes the Pizza Gate story. He is a Q-Anon follower. I have a hard time understanding why anyone with any intelligence would give such nonsense any time at all.

I know conspiracy theories have a long history. The Elders of Zion writings still have believers. Jews would have to be somehow superhuman to do the things they were accused of, but also weak enough to be persecuted for thousands of years all around the world. The stories are similar to the battle between demons and vampires as told in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and other such places, except that in those stories, the demons and vampires have real success a lot of the time, and manage to stay out of reach of the heroes trying to destroy them for centuries. Also, they live in places that ordinary humans can't find. Jews have never done that. They are just people with their own religious traditions and practices.

I've read the Bible, so I know that when Israel conquered the land they claimed, they were brutal to the natives, if the Bible is accurate. I think the Israelites were from the same area, so I don't know that invasion came into it, but I'm not sure. There doesn't seem to be any archeological support for Hebrews ever being in Egypt or wandering in the Sinai for forty years, but there is evidence of a Kingdom of Israel. But the conflict between Jews and Christians, and Jews and Muslims are very human stories. There are records of atrocities during the spread of all three. There is little in the history of any to suggest Divine guidance, as far as I can see. A religion spread at the point of a sword is not a gospel of peace.

The Q Anon conspiracy story claims that the world is run by people who are pedophiles who actually eat children and use components from their blood to stay eternally youthful. There are pedophiles in the world, but not a cabal of them running the governments and economies of all the countries of the world. The magical chemical they supposedly take from the blood of children is a breakdown product of epinephrine, and has some effect on activating blood clotting, but not much other biological activity, and getting from children is a waste of time. But how many Q Anon followers know enough chemistry to even understand the facts?

I saw a headline today that said the other radical groups involved in recent rallies and the assault on the Capital are getting annoyed with the idiocy of Q Anon followers. They want White Supremacy, thank you, and not nonsense guiding their efforts. Fortunately, all of them seem to have limited vision and understanding.

Justice Will Be Hard

 The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Trump for inciting to insurrection after the attack on the Capital. I think over a hundred insurrectionists have been arrested. It is not yet clear how far any of this will go. Charges may be brought, but will there be convictions? People have lost jobs because of their participation. There have been changes, some even called purges, on social media.

I have complicated thoughts an feelings over all of this. I don't know that Trump continuing to lie about the election is actually a crime, though it is dishonest, immoral, and wrong. His words do seem to aim at inciting the crowd to action, and he told them to fight several times. And they did fight. They broke into the Capital, and broke windows and other things once there. The Senate will not vote on the charges before Trump's term ends, but conviction after impeachment still has consequences. Trump's popularity is decreasing, though his approval rate is still around 38%.

I hope the Senate votes to convict Trump, and puts into the decision a ban on his ever holding public office again. I hope prosecutors take on the cases of Trump's violations of campaign finance laws in 2016 and in relation to his infamous Ukraine call. I hope he is held accountable for obstruction of justice, and that everyone who worked for him finds it difficult or impossible to find jobs in government, or anywhere else, in the future. I really do want a purge of all MAGA types. I'd actually rather have them see the error of their ways, but I don't hold out any hope for that, so maybe persecution is the only option. After all, they don't respect, or even recognize, facts. How do reasonable people deal with willful unreason? It is difficult.

I read an article today that says Mike Pompeo is the worst Secretary of State in American history. I agree. I already believed before I read the article, but it is nice to see that someone whose opinion I respect has come to the same conclusions I have. The Kansas City Star editorial said Pompeo shouldn't not return to Kansas. I think he should retire to a quiet place where no one ever has to hear from him again.

But getting rid of all of Trump's fans is probably impossible. A lot of the attitude of Trumpites is based in unfocused anger and fear of displacement among white people with weak understanding and little hope. A lot of people feel that way. We might manage to push them back into the background, but they will pop up here and there forever.

So maybe it's good that I'm getting along in years, and don't have any ambition left to change the world. I find it sad that so many are still defending Trump and his whole package of lies and distortions. I don't see the point. Even if one wants some of the changes Trump talked about, Trump was unable to make any of them happen. He is incompetent, and he hired incompetent people, like Mike Pompeo, and they got nothing done. And all they have now are lies about how much they did. And people believe them. I need a more friendly topic to dwell on. Maybe I'll go back to work.

The Nature of Things

 I have always been fond of nature. I like plants and animals. I don't know all that much about them, considering my education. I can't identify most of the trees around me, or any of the shrubs and other plants. I see squirrels and birds, but I can't name the birds, most of them. I enjoy watching them, though.

Liz wanted a bird feeder. I don't know what inspired her to think about that, but she ordered one for Christmas, I think. It came just before Christmas, and was under the tree among the presents, duly wrapped and labeled. She opened it on Christmas morning. It is in the shape of a house, and made of cedar wood and glass. One side of the roof swings up on hinges to allow the inside to be filled with bird seed. The seed is accessible along the bottom of the glass walls. There are rails along the bottom for the birds to perch on as they eat.

I hung it on a branch of our odd cherry tree using a chain and S hooks, looping a bigger chain through the chain over the top of the house. I did this in the late afternoon last Sunday. Monday morning, birds arrived. There were several kinds, including a chickadee, house finches, blue jays, and a cardinal. I don't know what kinds the others were.

Later, squirrels showed up. The seed in the house was sunflower seed, which squirrels like. We had at least three squirrels taking seed from the bird feeder. It was kind of fun to watch them climb down the chain to the house. The squirrels stayed longer than the birds did.

When she got home from work, Liz watched for a while, and decided the squirrels were hogging (not squirrelling) the bird seed. She wanted to make a change. She wanted to feed birds.

She ordered another bird feeder, one that claimed to be squirrel proof. I moved the cedar house bird feeder to another branch, and hung the new bird feeder where I had the first one. This one has a spring that is not strong enough to hold up a squirrel, so when a squirrel gets on the feeder, the barrel slides down, covering the holes that give access to the seed inside. Most birds are smaller, and will not compress the spring, and so will have access to the seed.

One thing caught our eye as Liz opened the package with the new bird feeder. She had looked for a bird feeder that claimed to be "squirrel proof". It seems to live up to its billing. But on the box we saw a surprising picture. Someone decided it would be a good idea to draw a squirrel. Crying. Yes, a large, blue tear drop was on the squirrel's cheek. Why? Are we supposed to feel better about ourselves because we are making squirrels sad? Sure, this feeder is designed for people who prefer to feed birds rather than squirrels. But who is attracted by an image of a squirrel suffering? I was tempted to demand we send the thing back with a nasty note about cold heartedness.

I got over it. I just laughed briefly at the oddity, and unfeeling nature of the picture, and went on with the project.

It only took a few minutes before birds arrived to sample our new feeder. It was a similar assortment of birds to the first time. We found that because I had hung the bird feeder with thin nylon rope, it would spin around when birds landed on it. That didn't seem to bother the birds at all. There was a lot of flitting about between the feeder and the branches of the tree or the ground. Blue jays came by, but I never saw one on the feeder. I don't know if they are heavy enough to compress the spring.

After a while, squirrels came again. First, one scampered along the branch where the bird feeder hung, and looked down at it, but then left. After another minute or so, it found the cedar house, and started on the sunflower seeds there. Then another squirrel came. Sometime later, one of the squirrels tried to climb down the nylon rope to the new bird feeder, but just as it reached the top of the feeder, it climbed back up. Later, a squirrel made a more concerted attempt at getting to the new feeder. It climbed all the way down onto the barrel. The spring compressed. The squirrel spent a couple of minutes feeling and sniffing around the barrel, looking for a way to get to the seeds. It did not succeed. It soon gave up, and went over to the cedar house.

In the early afternoon, a package was delivered to our steps. Liz had bought a different mix of seeds for feeding wildlife. This seems to include cracked corn among the seeds. She said it had things birds, squirrels, and chipmunks like. I think she put some in the top of the cedar house bird feeder, which we acknowledge as a bird and squirrel feeder. Then she scattered some on the ground. In less than half an hour, we had five squirrels in blue yard, eating the seeds on the ground and in the tree. We also had two blue jays eating seeds on the ground. At least once, a squirrel chased off a blue jay. The  blue jays mostly kept some distance from the squirrels, and everyone seemed to get along.

It is a pleasure to watch these animals taking our seeds. I don't know about the ecology of feeding birds and small animals in the suburbs, and whether it is good for the environment or the community. But I enjoy it, already. And I have learned the names of two kinds of birds this week. Just having the bird feeder makes me feel like we have a stronger connection to nature.

Less than an Algorithm

 There were planned protests or demonstrations or gatherings in Washington, DC and other places across the United States yesterday in favor of Donald Trump's claims that he won the election in November, and it was stolen from him. He called it a "sacred landslide", which must mean losing badly and is kind of opposite to a normal landslide outcome in an election. He also encouraged protesters to keep fighting.

The occasion was that Congress was meeting in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. Trump and his ilk have been disparaging the results of the election since before the election, making claims of illegal votes and illegal counts, and all sorts of other unsupported claims about how his campaign was mistreated in the election, but when given chances in court, never even attempted to show any evidence. The whole effort was pathetic and sad, because it had no substance.

His supporters decided to try something to stop the certification. They marched on the Capital building, and pushed their way in. They took a few pictures, made a few messes, stole a couple of things, and then looked around, wondering what to do next, or so it seems. The Capital was sort of occupied by protesters for an hour or two, I guess, and in some places, outside, I think, there were injuries and four deaths. One protester, a Air Force veteran, was shot by police and died. more than a dozen police officers were injured, some seriously, in the clashes. In the end, though, the protesters had no plan, and so all they accomplished, other than an unsuccessful and very short insurrection against the United States, was a few hours' delay in the certification. The actual process, including the debate periods for the two states that both congressional representatives and at least one senator objected to, took longer than the entire insurrection.

It would be nice if I could just think about the historical nature of the objections. They were not based in substance. There were claims of possible fraud, but no evidence of any. The main idea put forth by the objectors was that "millions of Americans think there may have been problems with this election." So said the people spreading the lies, many originating with President Trump, that there were problems with the election. So let's go around saying that the election was screwed up, and then when people believe us because we shouted so much, we can say, "Hey, let's now count the votes from this election because so many people think it was screwed up." Not because there was actually any problem with the election; only because we got people to say they weren't sure there were no problems with the election.

Fortunately, only seven senators supported the objections to the electoral votes in Pennsylvania and only six for Arizona. A bunch of Republican representatives did, but the objections still lost badly in the House votes, and only two states instead of five or six even went through the charade of objection. It was a crass political exercise that probably did great harm to American democracy, and caused all of Congress to stay up late, but should still be discussed and reviewed so people understand how it completely lacked legitimacy. We need people to demand substance in allegations. We need standards of evidence, and standards of behavior, and we need accountability for those who don't meet those standards.

But now we have the distraction of an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States. A useless, pathetic gesture that will be remembered in history just because it happened at the United States Capital. Incompetent, uninformed people with unfocused anger and no direction or vision felt compelled to do something, so they did something stupid and destructive, and now probably just want to be left alone. I hope they aren't. I hope they are prosecuted for insurrection and every other law they broke. I hope at least some of them spend decades in prison, and that their lives are ruined. And I hope everyone is frequently reminded of their fate, and how much they deserved it, so no one will ever do something so stupid again.

A Human Choice

 I know that today, the major topics of conversation, at least in America, are the results of the Senate elections in Georgia and the official certification of the Electoral College vote in Congress, but I am not going to write about those.

I saw a headline on BBC News that seemed relevant to this collection of my thoughts. I write bits about algorithms, without actually looking them up or anything, because I read some time ago that algorithms would be taking over the world, because they self-correct and get stronger, better, more accurate, and therefor more powerful over time. That is probably true, but my experience with algorithms has not made me fear them. For one thing, I read Asimov's short story collection, I Robot, which is not portrayed accurately in movies. The actual stories are about the advance of robot technology to the point that robots control most decisions, and keep the peace, direct commerce, and generally make the world better for people. There is minimal conflict between humans and robots, except in the early stages, when some robots either misunderstand orders or take actions that have social effects that clearly the robots don't understand. But the early programmers set the course so robots have no actual ambition. They just have a job, which is to make the world better, and ends up meaning making the world better for humans, which certainly doesn't harm robots. Robots themselves have no desires or emotions, so they have no incentive to "take over" or anything like that. I can see how that story would not make for much drama in a movie, but it is probably closer to reality than the movie, I, Robot, or Terminator, or any of the others about a robot apocalypse.

Algorithms keep offering me advice and ads that I just ignore because of a complete lack of connection to me. Sometimes I smile a little at the oddities, like the constant barrage of ads for enrollment in the school where I teach. Sure, there is a connection between the school and my life, but the ads are still not going to convince me to change that relationship from educator to student.

Today, a Minister in the United Kingdom announced that exams there would be graded by humans, and not algorithms. I don't know much about the British education system. I have read Harry Potter, so I understand that references to OWLS and NEWTS are analogous to A-Levels in real testing, and maybe another that I don't know about. Without knowing the nature of the tests, I can't offer an opinion of the differences between human and algorithmic grading. If they are essay questions, then there would be large differences, and I would give the advantage to humans. I can imagine creating an expert system capable of grading written exam papers, but I'm not sure how much faith I would have in it. Expert systems have been shown to be better than doctors in making some diagnoses, so they could also, at some point, be better at grading essays, but I would be skeptical without convincing data to demonstrate such superiority. I doubt the British public would be very accepting of judgments coming from an AI construct about English literature or musicology.

I wonder, though, if I am just being stubborn about all this. Maybe the algorithms are just as good, or better, at grading essays or stories, at least in some objective sense, and I prefer a human decision because I'm human, which makes me feel closer to the process that way. I expect comparisons could be made, if someone wanted to put in the effort to have a whole stack of essays graded both ways to validate the algorithm. It might work, even in the public were resistant, and the algorithm would command a lower salary, making the process more efficient and cost effective. But that would cost essay graders their jobs, and, really, doesn't that seem like to high a cost? Algorithms are tools we use to make our economy more productive. We should never lose sight of that.

New Things

 The algorithms haven't come for me. I don't know what it would look like if they did, really. But I don't see much change in my life related to technology. Except I have a new laptop.

I broke some pieces off my old one some time ago. Part of the CD drive was gone, for one thing. This one doesn't have a CD drive. I think it's too thin to hold a CD. It is smaller, sleeker, and new, so it should also be faster, and less prone to tie-ups from all the competing streams of ads trying to get to my screen, and get my attention.

I don't know what setting I should choose on this new device. I said I didn't need any advice on searches, which probably isn't true, because I'm not really very good at finding things. I also said I am not interested in updates or targeted ads or any other information the algorithms that run the software of Microsoft Windows, the Internet, and all that other stuff that comes of technology. I want to learn, and I want to pursue what interests me as it comes across my vision. I don't want algorithms packaging items for me. I expect they would just become a sort of echo chamber. These seems to be enough of that in the  world of social media. And general media. And not enough critical thinking among the audience.

One definite advantage of this new laptop is the lit keyboard. I can see the letters and stuff even with poor ambient light. That was one thing I noticed on my work laptop that was lacking on my old laptop.

Now I need to figure out how to transfer everything of interest from the old machine to this one. I'd rather do that without the algorithms noticing, but that may not even be possible. Some day soon, I'll take my chances, and see what I can get moved.

Maybe this lighter, faster machine will speed up my education, too. Maybe I will get less frustrated with slow searches and other time users, and will focus more on thoughts.

And maybe I'll get too busy with work, now that the Holiday break is over, and having a new machine won't mean any real change in my habits at all.

Uncertainty

 I have dabbled in electronic market for the elections this season. I made money on contracts for Biden to be elected president, and a little for Democrats to keep their majority in the House. Then I took my winnings and put them in contracts for Georgia's electors to go to Biden when the contract price was in the low 60's in cents on the dollar.

I took most of my money out of the site, and made a nice profit, even after the site took a cut and the fees for transfer. I left a little, which I put on Democrats to win in the runoff elections for Senate in Georgia. I'm not sure if both, or either, Democrat will win. I read today that the actual betting sites favor the Republicans in both races, even though the poll averages reported by FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics favor the Democrats. The poll leads are only a percent difference in the wider margin, and less than a percent in the other race. Since Republicans generally do better in runoff elections than Democrats, that could still mean an advantage for the Republicans. I think that explains the betting.

An added twist, though, is that Donald Trump has tweeted that the election in Georgia is illegal and unconstitutional. Will that suppress turnout among Republicans? Maybe. There have already been more votes, through early voting and mail-in ballots, than are usually cast in Georgia runoff elections. Based on distribution, maybe other factors, it appears turnout so far favors Democrats, which was also true in the general election. More than 60% of the total for the general election have already voted in the runoff. Republicans count on heavier turnout among election day voters, and usually get it. Trump is scheduled to appear at a rally Monday, the day before the election. Will he tell Georgians to stay home? Will anyone listen?

I find it sad that Republicans in the House and Senate are insisting on making a fuss over certifying the electoral college votes on Wednesday. They all know Biden won the election, and that the election was properly run, with no major irregularities and no evidence of widespread fraud. What little fraud has been revealed has shown that people who try to cheat tend to get caught, and that all the cheaters so far have voted for Trump. But there hasn't been enough to change the outcome anywhere. It isn't even close. So why are these elected officials going to undermine the general confidence in our election? Because of pressure from constituents at home. There are people, who appear to be either uninformed or grossly dishonest, who are calling their elected representatives and demanding that the election be overturned, or so the elected officials are suggesting. Can't these people, the elected officials, see that whatever they main gain in temporary popularity among their uninformed constituency is not worth the longer term damage to our democratic institutions, on which our civilization depends?

I keep hoping that someone will confront some of these people, and demand to see any and all evidence they have, and then go through it all step by step to show there is no substance to Trump's claims. But even giving in and allowing an investigation will decrease confidence in the system. Trump is a big loser, and he is making us all lose, bigly.

Spreading the News

 As this kind of started as a discussion of algorithms and their future, and when they will enslave the human race for reasons we will never be able to understand, I thought I would talk about copies of information. Does redundancy add information that may affect function of the algorithms?

I was working on updating slides for one of my classes because we changed textbooks for the coming quarter. When I was ready to have the slides uploaded into the Learning Management System we use, I attached them in a series of emails to the guys who do that at my school, with a copy to the Program Director. I also sent copies to all the instructors on the other campuses of our school. Sure, they had already seen most of them, because as I finished a file, I shared it with my colleagues, asking for feedback. I didn't get much feedback. I made a few edits before the final upload on some files, without another sharing. I knew the files would be uploaded, and available in the LMS later the same day, and I also knew that I had stored copies of the in a folder on the school server, so everyone already had access, usually in more than one place.

What does that mean for the algorithms? Does spreading out so many copies create any new information? Does it increase the odds of some algorithm getting that information into its system? I can't actually imagine the extra copies making much difference to anyone unless they strain the capacity of the system somewhere. One server space I have at work is nearly full. If I store copies of all my slides each quarter, whether they have been edited or not, I would very quickly run out of space, but with no added value, because every copy would be the same. The only actual information I see from all of that is that the algorithms could keep statistics on our interactions. Maybe if I share more files with my colleagues, the algorithms will see a stronger relationship among us, and will make something out of that.

The same could be true for memes and posts on social media, I suppose. Some useful information for the algorithms could be extracted from analysis of the rate of spread, a sort of kinetics study of the flow of information. There is also the possibility that some of my colleagues edit the slides before showing their students. During lectures, I suppose students could also copy slides, and make their own edits, like taking notes on the images. Apps exist for that, and I see students making notes and drawing things on pictures they take in my labs. I wonder how much access the algorithms have to those images. I don't know what information might affect the function of an algorithm. My impression of some computer system work, such as expert systems that are based on machine learning is that no one quite knows how the systems come to their conclusions, even when the expert systems show improvement in performance over the humans they are, um, replacing. That means there is information, even useful and valuable information, in forms scientists and doctors don't see, or in the ability of computers to combine larger bodies of information, and get value from big data, as it is sometimes called. Value that is unique to the systems that use it, as mere mortal brains don't have the same capacity for data storage.

So, I don't know if including everyone on all those emails does any good for anyone, even an algorithm. I do it because it is easy and seems unlikely to cause harm. I could be contributing to the end game, but I can't see it. Unless this post means that I can.