Un uomo1 che pedala lentamente per corso Canalchiaro, deserto nelle prime ore della mattina, seguito dal volo di una nuvola di colombi.
1) "Servizio alimentazione volatili comune di Modena"
Friday, April 27, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Racket
This leader of the Economist reminds me of Dino and Luigi Vercotti of a classic Monty Python skit (Army Protection Racket)
"You've got a nice country here, Argentines. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. it would be a shame if...'Cos things break, don't they? International credit breaks, things catch fire..."
One hopes that, in the same fashion, an officer in charge would stand up:
"No, no this is silly. The whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it."
However, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen: after all Dino and Luigi were funny. The article is not.
"You've got a nice country here, Argentines. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. it would be a shame if...'Cos things break, don't they? International credit breaks, things catch fire..."
One hopes that, in the same fashion, an officer in charge would stand up:
"No, no this is silly. The whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it."
However, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen: after all Dino and Luigi were funny. The article is not.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Face(s)Boom: a prophecy
After facebook's IPO, the US stock technological market will tank, 2001 like. This will solve the EU bond crisis. Mark my words.
P.S: For the inquisitive mind: after Facbook paid $1bilion (!!!!!) for instagram, Don Dodge, a Google executive and start-up veteran, has noted that the social network is paying about $30 per user for Instagram, and other social apps have been valued at anywhere from $20 to $50 per user.
Now this is the kind of nonsense that was all the rage in the pre-2001 new economy days. Too bad "FuckedCompany" is no more.
P.S: For the inquisitive mind: after Facbook paid $1bilion (!!!!!) for instagram, Don Dodge, a Google executive and start-up veteran, has noted that the social network is paying about $30 per user for Instagram, and other social apps have been valued at anywhere from $20 to $50 per user.
Now this is the kind of nonsense that was all the rage in the pre-2001 new economy days. Too bad "FuckedCompany" is no more.
A post on Sean Carroll blog.
This was a comment to this post of Sean Carroll's:
@TychaBrahe: "And perhaps then we need to teach that in school as part of the science curriculum. What you have here is Gerber’s. The meat is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
Oh my. This is, plain and simple, how one would define a priest chaste: "True understanding is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
The crux of the problem appears to be that a fairly large portion of scientists are - at heart - positivists, meaning that they think science makes assertions about what is true. (Even if most of them do publicly tell that they are Popper's followers, meaning they believe science makes assertions about what is false, a very different kind of fish).
When - inevitably - some of the previous "truths" is falsified, that turns out not to be good science PR.
A number of people claiming to speak in name of science also goes around making statements about the very small probability of something happening. (This is, by the way, bad methodology: a book called "The Black Swan" explains why.)
When that something happens, (say, Fukushima blows up, the Challenger disintegrates) that also turns out not to be good science PR.
Scientific eschatology can also be called to task as not being a source for good PR, seeing as, these days, it touts as sound a version of the anthropic principle depending on the existence of 10^500 universes created by the vagaries of an inflaton field whose existence is "theoretically testable".
Last, but not least, the attitude of many subscribers to the so called "new atheism" movement (aggressively ridiculing anybody not adhering to their point of view), isn't helping any.
Ideas for better PR, anyone?
@TychaBrahe: "And perhaps then we need to teach that in school as part of the science curriculum. What you have here is Gerber’s. The meat is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
Oh my. This is, plain and simple, how one would define a priest chaste: "True understanding is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
The crux of the problem appears to be that a fairly large portion of scientists are - at heart - positivists, meaning that they think science makes assertions about what is true. (Even if most of them do publicly tell that they are Popper's followers, meaning they believe science makes assertions about what is false, a very different kind of fish).
When - inevitably - some of the previous "truths" is falsified, that turns out not to be good science PR.
A number of people claiming to speak in name of science also goes around making statements about the very small probability of something happening. (This is, by the way, bad methodology: a book called "The Black Swan" explains why.)
When that something happens, (say, Fukushima blows up, the Challenger disintegrates) that also turns out not to be good science PR.
Scientific eschatology can also be called to task as not being a source for good PR, seeing as, these days, it touts as sound a version of the anthropic principle depending on the existence of 10^500 universes created by the vagaries of an inflaton field whose existence is "theoretically testable".
Last, but not least, the attitude of many subscribers to the so called "new atheism" movement (aggressively ridiculing anybody not adhering to their point of view), isn't helping any.
Ideas for better PR, anyone?
Friday, March 30, 2012
Bravo Rosario Giuliani
Grande concerto, ieri sera al Baluardo della Cittadella di Modena, del trio Rosario Giuliani (sax contralto), Enzo Pietropaoli (contrabbasso),Marcello Di Leonardo (batteria) con l'ospite di lusso Fabrizio Bosso (tromba). Ero andato senza conoscere il programma e sapere che era dedicato alla musica di Ornette Coleman
(che in genere non amo) mi aveva un po' preoccupato - ingiustificatamente.
Giuliani e i suoi hanno sapientemente rielaborato lo spigoloso linguaggio free creando una terra di mezzo (frrebop, diciamo) dalla quale hanno regalato al pubblico 90 minuti di energia irreprimibile, facendo del proprio innegabile virtuosismo un mezzo espressivo piuttosto che un ornamento fine a se stesso (come capita spesso). Spero di poter più tardi mettere un video della serata.
(che in genere non amo) mi aveva un po' preoccupato - ingiustificatamente.
Giuliani e i suoi hanno sapientemente rielaborato lo spigoloso linguaggio free creando una terra di mezzo (frrebop, diciamo) dalla quale hanno regalato al pubblico 90 minuti di energia irreprimibile, facendo del proprio innegabile virtuosismo un mezzo espressivo piuttosto che un ornamento fine a se stesso (come capita spesso). Spero di poter più tardi mettere un video della serata.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Contrarian
Reading contrarian reviews of books, movies etc. is usually as or more informative and quicker than reading the majority opinion.
So much about consistency
Ask a physicist, he'll tell you nature is efficient and minimalist; ask a biologist, he'll tell you it's inefficient and wasteful.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Can you falsify
Sam Harris is the author of the book "Free Will". The central point of his book is that free will is an illusion, because the reason of every our action are completely removed from our control and - even - our consciousness.
In other words: "I may be able to choose, but I cannot choose what I choose"
This way of framing the problem (as any other way, I admit) has a side that bothers me, as expressed by the following (Popper inspired) question:
"Is it possible to imagine an entity that is given free will in a sense that complies with the above objection?"
The problem is - obviously - that I cannot (and I'd like to ask Sam Harris). If the answer is indeed that such an entity cannot exist then we need to ask to ourselves if the reason is that the above objection is self-satisfying and therefore not very helpful (sort of saying "black is black" when asked to define black: true but trivially so) ? Or is the idea of free will intrinsically meaningless (like the "heigth of sweetness")? Or - finally - is the underlying definition of free will so bad that we need to go back to the drawing board before discussing its existence?
I rather tend to side with the third possibility, to which the first one may perhaps be reduced. The second remains a possibility, but it begs further explanations - after all, we do not spend much time debating the height of sweetness.
In other words: "I may be able to choose, but I cannot choose what I choose"
This way of framing the problem (as any other way, I admit) has a side that bothers me, as expressed by the following (Popper inspired) question:
"Is it possible to imagine an entity that is given free will in a sense that complies with the above objection?"
The problem is - obviously - that I cannot (and I'd like to ask Sam Harris). If the answer is indeed that such an entity cannot exist then we need to ask to ourselves if the reason is that the above objection is self-satisfying and therefore not very helpful (sort of saying "black is black" when asked to define black: true but trivially so) ? Or is the idea of free will intrinsically meaningless (like the "heigth of sweetness")? Or - finally - is the underlying definition of free will so bad that we need to go back to the drawing board before discussing its existence?
I rather tend to side with the third possibility, to which the first one may perhaps be reduced. The second remains a possibility, but it begs further explanations - after all, we do not spend much time debating the height of sweetness.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The problem wih music
Next time you hear someone complaining about how internet/piracy/(whatever) hurts music/movies/literature, and that someone happens to be part of the industry, think of this article.
The Problem With Music
by Steve Albini
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what’s printed on the contract. It’s too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody’s eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there’s only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says “Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke”. And he does of course. (Read all...)
The Problem With Music
by Steve Albini
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what’s printed on the contract. It’s too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody’s eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there’s only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says “Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke”. And he does of course. (Read all...)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Happy Birthday, Charles.
"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it! Something of the awfulness, even of Death itself, is referable to this. No more can I turn the leaves of this dear book that I loved, and vainly hope in time to read it all. No more can I look into the depths of this unfathomable water, wherein, as momentary lights glanced into it, I have had glimpses of buried treasure and other things submerged. It was appointed that the book should shut with a spring, for ever and for ever, when I had read but a page. It was appointed that the water should be locked in an eternal frost, when the light was playing on its surface, and I stood in ignorance on the shore. My friend is dead, my neighbour is dead, my love, the darling of my soul, is dead; it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end. In any of the burial-places of this city through which I pass, is there a sleeper more inscrutable than its busy inhabitants are, in their innermost personality, to me, or than I am to them?"
-- Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
-- Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
