Rick and Morty: Dan Harmon’s Next Experiment After stunning the world (or at least the portion of the world that pays attention to what showrunners do) by reclaiming his series Community, after being removed for season four, Dan Harmon has...

In summary, quite a useful general purpose car without being too shouty

Remarkably solid machine, and great fun to drive and own

Good work van; terrible main dealer, prices and staff...

Great vehicle otherwise. Just this issue causing me disappointment

From Music Row: Music City Walk Of Fame Announces 2024 Inductees The Nashville Convention & Visitors Corp have announced the Music City Walk of Fame will induct Jimmy Buffett, gospel quartet The Fairfield Four, Ryman Hospitality Properties’ Colin …

The post Jimmy Buffett will be honored with a star on the Music City Walk of Fame first appeared on BuffettNews.com.

From the Tennessean: Jimmy Buffett, Fairfield Four among quartet inducted at Music City Walk of Fame ceremony Nashville’s 2024 Music City Walk of Fame ceremony highlighted all corners and eras of the city’s multitude of …

The post Jimmy Buffett honored on Nashville’s Music City Walk of Fame first appeared on BuffettNews.com.

from Instagram https://instagr.am/p/DB48I-gSloZ/ via IFTTT

from Instagram https://instagr.am/p/DCIneGJpq6Z/ via IFTTT

(Note: the following is political, so if that’s agitating, concerning or upsetting, please don’t read it. This is not an endorsement of any candidate. It is not a solicitation for membership in the UAW or other trade union. No matter your position, on November 5, 2024, vote.)

 

The Chicks performed at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week; they sang the National Anthem.

As you may recall, they used to be known as the “Dixie Chicks.” But they dropped the adjective in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, recognizing that the term had associations with the Confederacy and connotations of racism.

One can imagine that they lost some sales as a result of that.

But one knows that in 2003 the group lost sales and fan support when lead singer Natalie Maines said during a concert in London, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” She was referring to George W. Bush. She said that in relation to the impending war in Iraq. Nine days after she made the statement, the invasion occurred.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

Video: Lizzy McAlpine – “Pushing It Down and Praying”

From the deluxe Older (and Wiser), out October 4 on RCA/Sony.

I got into Lizzy McAlpine this summer after reading Amanda Petrusich’s New Yorker profile. Her album Older is great and now she’s releasing an expanded version with five new songs. The “deluxe reissue six months after the original release” game is a racket, of course, but that’s the music business and you can’t really complain about getting new music, especially in these days of streaming when it’s not like anybody’s actually going out and spending $15 on a CD and then feeling like you have to go back out spend another $18 just to hear five outtakes that didn’t make the initial cut.

This new song is sonically similar to the stuff on Older and its lyrics expand upon the themes of sex and guilt and longing raised in “You Forced Me To” specifically. I wonder if it was left off the original release because it was too similar?

Lizzy McAlpine: web, bandcamp, amazon, apple, spotify, wiki.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

On February 16, 2011, IBM’s Watson DeepQA computer won Jeopardy!, beating trivia maven Brad Rutter and current Jeopardy! host and no slouch when it comes to knowing things that it is strange that things that aren’t databases know, Ken Jennings.

According to IBM, to get the computer to where it needed to be the company assigned more than 24 scientists, engineers and programmers, including a guy who’d won $10,000 on Jeopardy!

IBM: “It took the team five years to prefect the question-answering system.”

And the system “was a room-size computer consisting of 10 racks holding 90 servers, with a total of 2,880 processor cores.”

Rutter and Jennings? Just a couple of guys.

The idea for developing the system followed IBM’s Deep Blue computer defeating chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997—although it should be noted that when the two first faced off in 1996 Kasparov beat the computer, 4-2.

And similarly, Watson didn’t win from the start, either.

There were two matches over three days.

In the first match, the clue for the question to be created for “Final Jeopardy” in the category “U.S.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

What are 'quackbusters', you might ask. Well, Tim Bolen has the answer to that question. On his site (quackpotwatch.org) he explains: The "quackbuster" operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil. It's sole purpose is to discredit, and suppress, in an "anything goes" attack mode, what is wrongfully named "Alternative Medicine." It has declared war on reality. The conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by the "conventional" medical-industrial complex. These so-called quackbusters seem to be a branch of a larger movement, the "skeptics". Their website at www.skeptic.com/ shows who they are. Skeptics think of themselves as having opinions based on scientific 'truth'. They are very outspoken and very much "out there" to disabuse the rest of us of any idea that does not fit into their version of the scientific world view. While real scientific procedure requires there to be observation and experiment, formation and testing of hypotheses, and open discussion of both experiment and theories, the skeptics have firmly made up their mind on a number of issues. And they don't hesitate to tell us where we are going wrong... Mercury and fluoride for instance are not poisons for skeptics, and anyone who thinks they are must clearly be a conspiracy nut. Vaccination is good for you, as are chemotherapy and radiation cancer treatments offered by conventional medicine. If you oppose either of them you are simply a 'quack' or at the least you are an easy target for those who take advantage of your stupidity. The practices of alternative medicine, including "chiropractic, the placebo effect, homeopathy, acupuncture, and the questionable benefits of organic food, detoxification, and ‘natural’ remedies" are a favorite subject of the skeptics. They know that only mainstream medicine should be relied on and everyone who is into those practices really needs to have their head examined....

This is a reasoned argument by Joanna (Why I Don't Vaccinate My Children) posted on Erwin Alber's VINE facebook page which was started in 2009, to help parents make an informed choice on behalf of their children. Image credit topnews.ae Joanna responds (below) to a lady who published an article saying that unvaccinated children are the cause of recent increased pertussis (whooping cough) outbreaks in areas where vaccination is actively pursued......

“Perhaps you’re familiar with “the tragedy of the commons,” a social dilemma outlined by the late biologist Garrett Hardin in a famous 1968 essay of the same name. The dilemma is that when individuals pursue personal gain, the net result for society as a whole may be impoverishment. (Pollution is the most familiar example.) Such thinking has fallen out of fashion amid President Bush’s talk of an “ownership society,” but its logic is unassailable.”

That response seems like a pretty damn obtuse interpretation of the essay, simply because the essay is nothing if not a plea for the creation of property rights. Furthermore, while it is true that Hardin claims that pursuing individual gain leads to group catastrophe, the word “when” in the paragraph above implies that there are times when the individual doesn’t, whereas Hardin claims that individuals basically always pursue their own interest, which is the problem in high-density situations where some amout of coordination is necessary. However, upon re-reading it, I realize that for Hardin property rights only forms a part of a wished-for imposition of coercive measures which will prevent individuals from pursuing personal gain at the expense of their environment. Which makes sense, because property rights, for all this may get lost in the ceaseless ideological wrangling today, are themselves forms of state-imposed coercion. Dismiss the semi-metaphysical nonsense in Locke and Kant about gaining “just propriety” over an object by making a visible mark on it. Think about it: animals control exactly as much “property” as they can defend; cheetahs peeing on trees only works because they will fight to defend what they have claimed. By contrast, think about who adjudicates the (in theory) incontestable property rights: the authorities, i.e. in our society, the State. The corollary of this, of course, is that nationalized or federal property is not “public property,” in the sense of property owned by the public—quite the contrary. The dichotomy between it and “private property” is spurious. “Public property” is simply property owned by the government. This no doubt seems obvious and intuitive, but based on the foolishness I cited above, it bears repeating that property rights, whether granted to others by the government or to itself, are not opposed to coercive state power but are in fact the very essence of it. That fact is perhaps more apparent in regards to so-called “intellectual property.”

As a marginal note, Hardin’s essay, despite the pithiness of its central analogy, is rather dispiriting insofar as it takes Hegel’s statement that “Freedom lies in the recognition of necessity” as its motto and guiding spirit. That formulation is, as I believe I have said before, perfectly monstruous. Freedom means nothing if it is not the absence of restriction, and it is perhaps a sign of the evasive confusion of priorities in Western culture that one would pretend to celebrate this value in such a way while in fact describing its opposite. Freedom is not an act or a thought, but rather a set of conditions under which action and thought occur. This is the same idealistic debasement of the language that has turned love into a deed: making love.

Note to Curt:

Just because the state claims the authority to apprehend and punish rapists doesn’t mean that apprehending and punishing rapists is a form of state coercion. Nor is the notion that rape is bad an example of state coercion. Depending on your perspective, this is either a moral truth derived from God/reason/whatever or a widely-accepted social convention. Similarly, the notion that one can own property is (again, depending on your perspective) either morally necessary or a widely-accepted social convention that seems to work pretty well (here I’m dispensing with Communists and other fools who have nothing intelligent to say on the matter). Either way, the fact that the state claims ultimate authority to adjudicate property disputes does not make private property a form of state coercion. (Further reading)

“Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand things, you just get used to them.” —John von Neumann¹

This, in a sense, is at the heart of why mathematics is so hard. Math is all about abstraction, about generalizing the stuff you can get a sense of to apply to crazy situations about which you otherwise have no insight whatsoever. Take, for example, one way of understanding the manifold structure on SO(3), the special orthogonal group on 3-space. In order to explain what I’m talking about, I’ll have to give several definitions and explanations and each, to a greater or lesser extent, illustrates both my point about abstraction and von Neumann’s point about getting used to things.

First off, SO(3) has a purely algebraic definition as the set of all real (that is to say, the entries are real numbers) 3 × 3 matrices A with the property A^TA = I and the determinant of A is 1. That is, if you take A and flip rows and columns, you get the transpose of A, denoted A^T; if you then multiply this transpose by A, you get the identity matrix I. The determinant has its own complicated algebraic definition (the unique alternating, multilinear functional…), but it’s easy to compute for small matrices and can be intuitively understood as a measure of how much the matrix “stretches” vectors. Now, as with all algebraic definitions, this is a bit abstruse; also, as is unfortunately all too common in mathematics, I’ve presented all the material slightly backwards.

This is natural, because it seems obvious that the first thing to do in any explication is to define what you’re talking about, but, in reality, the best thing to do in almost every case is to first explain what the things you’re talking about (in this case, special orthogonal matrices) really are and why we should care about them, and only then give the technical definition. In this case, special orthogonal matrices are “really” the set of all rotations of plain ol’ 3 dimensional space that leave the origin fixed (another way to think of this is as the set of linear transformations that preserve length and orientation; if I apply a special orthogonal transformation to you, you’ll still be the same height and width and you won’t have been flipped into a “mirror image”). Obviously, this is a handy thing to have a grasp on and this is why we care about special orthogonal matrices. In order to deal with such things rigorously it’s important to have the algebraic definition, but as far as understanding goes, you need to have the picture of rotations of 3 space in your head.

Okay, so I’ve explained part of the sentence in the first paragraph where I started throwing around arcane terminology, but there’s a bit more to clear up; specifically, what the hell is a “manifold”, anyway? Well, in this case I’m talking about differentiable (as opposed to topological) manifolds, but I don’t imagine that explanation helps. In order to understand what a manifold is, it’s very important to have the right picture in your head, because the technical definition is about ten times worse than the special orthogonal definition, but the basic idea is probably even simpler. The intuitive picture is that of a smooth surface. For example, the surface of a sphere is a nice 2-dimensional manifold. So is the surface of a donut, or a saddle, or an idealized version of the rolling hills of your favorite pastoral scene. Slightly more abstractly, think of a rubber sheet stretched and twisted into any configuration you like so long as there are no holes, tears, creases, black holes or sharp corners.

In order to rigorize this idea, the important thing to notice about all these surfaces is that, if you’re a small enough ant living on one of these surfaces, it looks indistinguishable from a flat plane. This is something we can all immediately understand, given that we live on an oblate spheroid that, because it’s so much bigger than we are, looks flat to us. In fact, this is very nearly the precise definition of a manifold, which basically says that a manifold is a topological space (read: set of points with some important, but largely technical, properties) where, at any point in the space, there is some neighborhood that looks identical to “flat” euclidean space; a 2-dimensional manifold is one that looks locally like a plane, a 3-dimensional manifold is one that looks locally like normal 3-dimensional space, a 4-dimensional manifold is one that looks locally like normal 4-dimensional space, and so on.

In fact, these spaces look so much like normal space that we can do calculus on them, which is why the subject concerned with manifolds is called “differential geometry”. Again, the reason why we would want to do calculus on spaces that look a lot like normal space but aren’t is obvious: if we live on a sphere (as we basically do), we’d like to be able to figure out how to, e.g., minimize our distance travelled (and, thereby, fuel consumed and time spent in transit) when flying from Denver to London, which is the sort of thing for which calculus is an excellent tool that gives good answers; unfortunately, since the Earth isn’t flat, we can’t use regular old freshman calculus.² As it turns out, there are all kinds of applications of this stuff, from relatively simple engineering to theoretical physics.

So, anyway, the point is that manifolds look, at least locally, like plain vanilla euclidean space. Of course, even the notion of “plain vanilla euclidean space” is an abstraction beyond what we can really visualize for dimensions higher than three, but this is exactly the sort of thing von Neumann was talking about: you can’t really visualize 10 dimensional space, but you “know” that it looks pretty much like regular 3 dimensional space with 7 more axes thrown in at, to quote Douglas Adams, “right angles to reality”.

Okay, so the claim is that SO(3), our set of special orthogonal matrices, is a 3-dimensional manifold. On the face of it, it might be surprising that the set of rotations of three space should itself look anything like three space. On the other hand, this sort of makes sense: consider a single vector (say of unit length, though it doesn’t really matter) based at the origin and then apply every possible rotation to it. This will give us a set of vectors based at the origin, all of length 1 and pointing any which way you please. In fact, if you look just at the heads of all the vectors, you’re just talking about a sphere of radius 1 centered at the origin. So, in a sense, the special orthognal matrices look like a sphere. This is both right and wrong; the special orthogonal matrices do look a lot like a sphere, but like a 3-sphere (that is, a sphere living in four dimensions), not a 2-sphere (i.e., what we usually call a “sphere”).

In fact, locally SO(3) looks almost exactly like a 3-sphere; globally, however, it’s a different story. In fact, SO(3) looks globally like , which requires one more excursion into the realm of abstraction. , or real projective 3-space, is an abstract space where we’ve taken regular 3-space and added a “plane at infinity”. This sounds slightly wacky, but it’s a generalization of what’s called the projective plane, which is basically the same thing but in a lower dimension. To get the projective plane, we add a “line at infinity” rather than a plane, and the space has this funny property that if you walk through the line at infinity, you get flipped into your mirror image; if you were right-handed, you come out the other side left-handed (and on the “other end” of the plane). But not to worry, if you walk across the infinity line again, you get flipped back to normal.

Okay, sounds interesting, but how do we visualize such a thing? Well, the “line at infinity” thing is good, but infinity is pretty hard to visualize, too. Instead we think about twisting the sphere in a funny way:

You can construct the projective plane as follows: take a sphere. Imagine taking a point on the sphere, and its antipodal point, and pulling them together to meet somewhere inside the sphere. Now do it with another pair of points, but make sure they meet somewhere else. Do this with every single point on the sphere, each point and its antipodal point meeting each other but meeting no other points. It’s a weird, collapsed sphere that can’t properly live in three dimensions, but I imagine it as looking a bit like a seashell, all curled up on itself. And pink.

This gives you the real projective plane, . If you do the same thing, but with a 3-sphere (again, remember that this is the sphere living in four dimensions), you get . Of course, you can’t even really visualize or, for that matter, a 3-sphere, so really visualizing is going to be out of the question, but we have a pretty good idea, at least by analogy, of what it is. This is, as von Neumann indicates, one of those things you “just get used to”.

Now, as it turns out, if you do the math, SO(3) and look the same in a very precise sense (specifically, they’re diffeomorphic). On the face of it, of course, this is patently absurd, but if you have the right picture in mind, this is the sort of thing you might have guessed. The basic idea behind the proof linked above is that we can visualize 3-space as living inside 4-space (where it makes sense to talk about multiplication); here, a rotation (remember, that’s all the special orthogonal matrices/transformations really are) is just like conjugating by a point on the sphere. And certainly conjugating by a point is the same as conjugating by its antipodal point, since the minus signs will cancel eachother in the latter case. But this is exactly how we visualized , as the points on the sphere with antipodal points identified!

I’m guessing that most of the above doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but I would urge you to heed von Neumann’s advice: don’t necessarily try to “understand” it so much as just to “get used to it”; the understanding can only come after you’ve gotten used to the concepts and, most importantly, the pictures. Which was really, I suspect, von Neumann’s point, anyway: of course we can understand things in mathematics, but we can only understand them after we suspend our disbelief and allow ourselves to get used to them. And, of course, make good pictures.

---

¹ This, by the way, is my second-favorite math quote of the year, behind my complex analysis professor’s imprecation, right before discussing poles vs. essential singularities, to “distinguish problems that are real but not serious from those that are really serious.”

² As a side note, calculus itself is a prime example of mathematical abstraction. The problem with the world is that most of the stuff in it isn’t straight. If it were, we could have basically stopped after the Greeks figured out a fair amount of geometry. And, even worse, not only is non-straight stuff (like, for example, a graph of the position of a falling rock plotted against time) all over the place, but it’s hard to get a handle on. So, instead of just giving up and going home, we approximate the curvy stuff in the world with straight lines, which we have a good grasp of. As long as we’re dealing with stuff that’s curvy (rather than, say, broken into pieces) this actually works out pretty well and, once you get used to it all, it’s easy to forget what the whole point was, anyway (this, I suspect, is the main reason calculus instruction is so uniformly bad; approximating curvy stuff with straight lines works so well that those who who are supposed to teach the process lose sight of what’s really going on).

Lochen, Heften und Ablegen sind selbst für einen kleinen Beamten keine ernsthafte Herausforderung. Einen wahren Extremsport scheint hingegen das korrekte Inkraftsetzen eines Bebauungsplans darzustellen, zumindest in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Jedenfalls finde ich in der

Die Polizei in Irland ist einem geheimnisvollen polnischen Verkehrsrowdy auf die Spur gekommen, der landauf, landab die Straßen unsicher zu machen schien - denn gegen den seltsamen Herr Pravo Jazdy liefen Dutzende von Verfahren wegen Schnellfahrens und Parkverstößen. Und irgendwie schaffte es Pravo Jazdy immer, sich der Justiz zu entziehen, indem er eine falsche Adresse angab. Nun hat die Polizei dar Rätsel allerdings gelöst, wenn auch mit dem Ergebnis, dass sie die Bußgelder wohl in den Kamin schreiben kann. Zur Auflösung hier nur so viel: Es wäre nicht weiter verwunderlich, wenn auch ein französischer Adliger namens Permis de Conduire auf der Fahndungsliste stünde.

Auch im Regierungsbezirk Detmold ist der Kalte Krieg vorbei, so dass die Bezirksregierung die früher mit öffentlichen Zuschüssen geförderten Schutzräume in Privathäusern nicht mehr für notwendig hält. Das (teilweise) Verbot, solche Räume baulich zu verändern, hat sie daher neulich durch eine

USB Device Tree Viewer provides detailed information for all USB ports and hubs on a computer in a tree view format. If a device is connected to a port, it also provides detailed information for the ....

Free Music Video Downloader (Lacey) enables you to download your favorite music as MP3 files from various online sources, including Last.FM, Grooveshark, Sogou, VKontakte, SoundCloud, and many ....

AVG AntiVirus Free Edition provides a reliable tool to protect your PC against many of today's viruses. AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition has both online and offline protection from viruses, spyware, and other nasties with consistent high-speed performance as well as automatic signature or virus definition updates to make sure you're current. [License: Ad-Supported / Freemium | Requires: 11|10|8|7|macOS | Size: Size Varies ]

Posted without comment for your consternation:

On Labor Day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) issued a press release whose title summarizes its contents all too neatly: Bush Declares Eco-Whistleblower Law Void for EPA Employees. Here's some of it:

Washington, DC - The Bush administration has declared itself immune from whistleblower protections for federal workers under the Clean Water Act, according to legal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result of an opinion issued by a unit within the Office of the Attorney General, federal workers will have little protection from official retaliation for reporting water pollution enforcement breakdowns, manipulations of science or cleanup failures.

The rest of the post on the terrific blog Effect Measure

Everyone on the Internet fears the day that Google will enter their market. Today the fear was tangible for Rollyo and Swicki. The Financial Times reported that Google will launch tomorrow (Tuesday) "...a customisable search engine that users can carry on their own blogs and other websites..." and compares the new service to Rollyo.

Matthew Ingram carries the photo of a shark on his post about this development. Ingram points out that when Google entered the calendar market, competitor Kiko gave up and sold themselves. He asks whether or not this was the right decision -- pointing to Paul Graham's post at the time "Google Does Not Render Resistance Futile."

I find myself agreeing with Paul and Rex Hammock puts his finger on it when he writes:

There’s a social networking aspect of Rollyo that probably won’t be a part of the Google product, however the Google product will likely offer publishers, including bloggers, an instant way to monetize narrow search in the Adsense program they’re already participating in.

For all of the things that Google has done right in technology, they have done very little well in the category of social. It isn't too late for them to learn but if history is any guide, they will miss the importance of the social network in search as well.

And frankly having a strong competitor forces you to do the two things which you most need to do in any case when you are a small business -- innovate constantly and be 500% better than your larger competition. Then Google can educate the market about why the market needs your product and then you can deliver on the market's expectations. That is what YouTube did.

wget github.com

gunzip cheat-linux-arm64.gz

chmod 770 cheat-linux-arm64

./cheat-linux-arm64

mv cheat-linux-arm64 /usr/local/bin/cheat

#use cheat tar or cheat wget to get more info

To open the Navigator, select View > Navigator, or press the F5 key, or select the Navigator in the sidebar.On the simplest level, the Navigator lists all of a document’s objects, including outline levels – headings by default, other paragraph styles as well if you edit outline levels. Clicking a list item in the Navigator jumps to it in the editing window.

Settings > Digital Wellbeing and parental controls. Tap your preferred Focus Mode or create your own by selecting Add. Select Start to start using that Focus Mode.

You can create User Defined Property in libreoffice writer. File – Properties – Custom Properties – Add Property – Set the type: Date) – Set the value.

To use this property goto Insert – Field – More Fields – DocInformation – Custom.

You can "discretize" or "bin" continuous features into categorical features.

from sklearn.preprocessing import KBinsDiscretizer

kb = KBinsDiscretizer(n_bins=3, strategy='quantile', encode='ordinal')

kb.fit_transform(df['Fare'])