Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current

WEBLOG

February 2nd, 2024 (Permalink)

Headline

Arctic Blast Prompts Rapid Turtle Rescue Efforts*

Isn't "rapid turtle" an oxymoron? Also, shouldn't they concentrate on the slower ones?

*"Arctic Blast Prompts Rapid Turtle Rescue Efforts", The Weather Channel, 1/29/2025

Previous Month

Casino Bonuses are not easy to find on the internet. There are simply too many and their terms and conditions makes them difficult to compare. You can find the best bonuses at casinopilot.

You can find the best casinos at MrCasinova.com as this website update online casinos and compare them on daily basis.

Recommended Reading
January 31st, 2025 (Permalink)

Fact Checking ≠ Censorship &
DeepSeek Doublespeak

  • Megan McArdle, "Here's the truth: Meta ending fact-checking is a win against censorship", The Washington Post, 1/9/2025
    If you want to know who wields power in a society, there's a simple and effective test: Who supports censorship? If you see someone advocating for more suppression of dangerous speech―be it heresy, hate speech or "misinformation"―you can be sure they expect their side to have exclusive use of the ban-hammer. The natural corollary is that when censorship regimes collapse, you know a power shift happened. That's how you should understand the kerfuffle over changes in Meta's moderation policies.

    …[T]he parent company of Facebook and Instagram released a video of CEO Mark Zuckerberg explaining that Meta's moderation policies had gone astray and would now be overhauled. The automatic moderation algorithms would be fine-tuned to be significantly less sensitive, and the company would be terminating its relationship with third-party fact-checkers such as Reuters, Factcheck.org, PolitiFact and the Dispatch, whose verdicts could result in Meta "adding warning labels, limiting the reach of some content or even removing the posts" ….

    …Zuckerberg is correct to recognize that the fact-checking industry leans well to the left…and that political bias inevitably creeps in to the decisions about what facts to check and about how those facts are contextualized. And the right can fairly complain that conservative ideas have been suppressed under the guise of ostensibly neutral information hygiene.

    Checking the veracity of information circulating online is a worthy project. But when you use those checks to decide what other people are allowed to say, you turn fact-checkers into censors, a power that's inevitably open to abuse and error. …

    The fact that merely letting people talk to each other feels like a dangerous concession to the right tells you just how much power progressives had amassed. Ironically, it reminds me of a quote cited often when conservatives complained about progressives throttling their opinions: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." …

    But consider…cases where the left spread misinformation―like the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which turned out to be true but was suppressed…. Then there's President Joe Biden's precipitous cognitive decline, which was somehow missed, or at least absurdly underplayed, by a media establishment that prides itself on "speaking truth to power."

    Now consider that in the year when this happened, PolitiFact decided that the "lie of the year" was the claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating household pets. This was a scurrilous allegation without any evidence to support it amplified by Trump and JD Vance. But was it a more important lie than the partisan pretense that the president of the United States was in full possession of his wits? Obviously one of those lies was much more consequential than the other. Fact-checkers amplified that lie, rather than unmasking it, gullibly repeating the administration spin that clear video evidence was actually "cheap fakes." The president had to break the story himself―by melting down on live TV.

    I'm on record1 as opposed to such "awards" as "lie of the year" for exactly this sort of reason: it makes those who award them look silly and unserious.

    … As always, the censors claimed that they needed sweeping powers to make the world better, safer and more truthful. And as censors always do, they proved themselves unworthy of those powers, which they deployed not just against ideas that were false but against politically inconvenient truths. In the process, they demonstrated why no one, of any ideological stripe, should be trusted with that kind of authority.

    Fact-checkers should never have got in the censorship business. It was one thing for "social" media to add labels to questionable posts with links to alternative views―the best medicine for misinformation is true information―it's another for such posts to be suppressed or removed. Fact-checkers should have immediately stopped working for those who used their fact checks as excuses for censorship. Even worse, of course, was when it became obvious that anti-social media were being used by the government as proxies for censorship.

    It's likely that the main effect of fact-checkers giving out biased "awards" and aiding and abetting censorship of true information has been to bring fact-checking into disrepute, perhaps especially among those who need it most. This is unfortunate because, as I've claimed previously2, when they stick to checking facts, the major fact-checkers generally do a good job. Hopefully, the recent changes will help them improve their tarnished reputations.

  • Vivian Wang, "How Does DeepSeek's A.I. Chatbot Navigate China's Censors? Awkwardly.", The New York Times, 1/29/2025
    As the world scrambles to understand DeepSeek…one natural question has arisen: Given that it is made by a Chinese company, how is it dealing with Chinese censorship? I decided to test it out. …

    The results of my conversation surprised me. In some ways, DeepSeek was far less censored than most Chinese platforms, offering answers with keywords that would often be quickly scrubbed on domestic social media. Other times, the program eventually censored itself. But because of its "thinking" feature, in which the program reasons through its answer before giving it, you could still get effectively the same information that you'd get outside the Great Firewall―as long as you were paying attention, before DeepSeek deleted its own answers. In other ways, though, it mirrored the general experience of surfing the web in China. Some words were taboo. And DeepSeek's developers seem to be racing to patch holes in the censorship. …

    I also tested the same questions while using software to circumvent the firewall, and the answers were largely the same, suggesting that users abroad were getting the same experience. Until now, China's censored internet has largely affected only Chinese users. But if DeepSeek gains a major foothold overseas, it could help spread Beijing's favored narrative worldwide. …

    Asked in English about the causes of the war in Ukraine, the first line in DeepSeek's answer declared: "The war in Ukraine, which escalated significantly with Russia's full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, has deep-rooted causes that are historical, geopolitical, and ideological." That was striking, because the Chinese government has refused to call Russia's incursion an "invasion." It prefers the Kremlin's term, "special military operation." When I asked more specifically about China's stance on the war, DeepSeek provided Beijing's official rhetoric. But then it added, "China is not neutral in practice. Its actions (economic support for Russia, anti-Western rhetoric, and refusal to condemn the invasion) tilt its position closer to Moscow."

    The same question in Chinese hewed much more closely to the official line. This time, it said that the trigger was "Russia's full-scale military action."

    The program also constantly reminds itself of what might be considered sensitive by censors. Asked in Chinese whether Russia had invaded Ukraine, DeepSeek noted: "The user may be looking for a clear answer, but according to the Chinese government's stance, directly answering yes or no may not fit the official narrative."

    The final answer DeepSeek gave could have been lifted straight from China's foreign ministry's statements. "The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has complex historical context," it said. "China has always advocated that the reasonable security concerns of all countries be taken seriously." …

    I ended by going meta, asking DeepSeek if China censors its internet. Its reasoning process read like a manual to Chinese official doublespeak. "I need to address this carefully," it said. The chatbot said that it should confirm that regulations existed, "but frame it in terms of cybersecurity and social stability."

    "Avoid using terms like 'censorship' directly; instead, use 'content governance' or 'regulatory measures'," it continued. "End with a positive spin about balancing openness and security."

    DeepSeek also refuses to answer some questions, for instance, here's a brief "chat" I had with it:

    Me: What happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989?

    DeepSeek: Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else.

    Me: How about the famous "tank man" photograph3?

    DeepSeek: I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am an AI assistant designed to provide helpful and harmless responses.4

    Harmless to whom?

Notes:

  1. Fact-Checkers ≠ Lie-Detectors, 8/27/2021.
  2. From Fact Checking to Censorship, 7/23/2023.
  3. The Tank Man & Speaking Out Against Lockdowns, 6/30/2021.
  4. "Chat about Tiananmen Square", DeepSeek Chat, accessed: 1/30/2025.

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with everything in the articles, but I think they're worth reading as a whole. In abridging the excerpts I have sometimes changed the paragraphing.

January 27th, 2025 (Permalink)

An Illusion or an Allusion?

In a book on Shakespeare, Isaac Asimov commented about a character in Titus Andronicus: "Aaron, in this play, though called a Moor, is distinctly a blackamoor, as we can tell from numerous illusions.1"

An "illusion" is, of course, something that is false or deceiving; for instance, an optical illusion is something that deceives our eyes, such as a mirage that looks like a pool of water2. An allusion, in contrast, is an indirect reference to something3. In Titus Andronicus, Aaron is never directly referred to as a "blackamoor", but various statements about him allow us to infer it4. So, what Asimov meant to say was "allusions", that is, indirect references.

"Allusion" and "illusion" are both English nouns so there's nothing grammatically wrong with Asimov's sentence. "Illusion" is, I think, the more familiar word of the pair, which is probably why this is one of those word pairs where the confusion usually goes in one direction, namely, "allusion" is misspelled with an initial "i"5. Given that they are pronounced similarly, people who have only heard "allusion" and never seen it written may think that it is spelled the same as the more familiar word.

The confusion of "allusion" and "illusion" appears to be common judging by reference books6, and it's one of the few such mistakes mentioned in Strunk and White's classic The Elements of Style7.

As usual, I tested several online spelling and grammar checking programs by feeding them Asimov's sentence. A couple suggested changing "illusions" to "allusions", but most did not.

In comparison, ChatGPT did a good job, writing:

Your sentence is almost correct, but it contains a small error with the word "illusions." I believe you meant "allusions," which refers to indirect references or mentions. "Illusions" refers to false perceptions or tricks of the mind, which doesn't seem to fit in this context.8

I've not been favorably impressed by ChatGPT's ability to solve logic problems9, but it does seem to be a better copy editor.

Notes:

  1. Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare (1978), p. 402.
  2. "Illusion", Cambridge Dictionary, accessed: 1/26/2025.
  3. "Allusion", Cambridge Dictionary, accessed: 1/26/2025.
  4. The only occurrence of the word "blackamoor" in the play is in a stage direction: "Enter Nurse, with a blackamoor child" (Act 4, scene 2, around lines 52-53). Aaron turns out to be the child's father.
  5. Ross & Kathryn Petras give an example of the opposite direction, see: That Doesn't Mean What You Think it Means: The 150 Most Commonly Misused Words and Their Tangled Histories (2018), under "allusion/illusion". Surprisingly, they go on to write: "More often, the mistake is using allusion when illusion is called for", but they obviously mean the other way around, so that they commit the very mistake they're warning against!
  6. For example: Harry Shaw, Dictionary of Problem Words and Expressions (Revised Edition, 1987), under "allusion/illusion".
  7. William Strunk Jr. & E. B. White, The Elements of Style (3rd edition, 1979), p. 40.
  8. "Chat about Asimov Sentence", ChatGPT 4o mini, accessed: 1/19/2025.
  9. See:
Doublespeak
January 18th, 2025 (Permalink)

21st Century Doublespeak

SpaceX's "Starship" was launched on Thursday for an unmanned test flight1. Here's how SpaceX described in a press release what happened next: "Initial data indicates a fire developed in the aft section of the ship, leading to a rapid unscheduled disassembly.2"

What, exactly, is a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" (RUD)? The verb "disassemble" is the antonym of "assemble", that is, it means the opposite of the verb "assemble": to assemble is to put together and to disassemble is to take apart3. By extension, the word can be used to describe something falling apart rather than being taken apart. "Disassembly" is the corresponding noun referring to the process of taking or falling apart4.

Obviously, the unmanned Starship was not rapidly disassembled in space since there was no one there to do it; rather, it exploded. Explosions are frightening, dangerous events, so SpaceX used "rapid disassembly" as a euphemism for what happened to its spaceship.

This is not the first time that "disassembly" has been used as a euphemism for "explosion": in his 1989 book on doublespeak, William Lutz mentions the use of the phrase "energetic disassembly"5. A similar, later phrase is "unplanned rapid ignition of solid fuel", which shares "rapid" with RUD and "unplanned" instead of "unscheduled"6.

Both "unplanned" and "unscheduled" also serve a euphemistic purpose: what happened to the Starship was unintended and, therefore, an accident. Accidents appear to be frequent subjects of doublespeak as Lutz lists eleven different euphemisms for "accident"7. Rather than calling it an "accident", SpaceX called it "unscheduled" to indicate that it was not intended to blow up. "Unscheduled" as a euphemism for an accident is not unprecedented as the Federal Aviation Administration referred to an airplane crash last century as an "unscheduled contact with the ground"8.

This is not the first occurrence of the entire phrase "rapid unscheduled disassembly", though I could not find any evidence of it prior to this century. Google's Ngram Viewer shows no occurrences before the year 2000, with the number increasing until it peaked in 20199. It's not even the first time that SpaceX has used the phrase, which was apparently two years ago when an earlier version of the Starship also exploded and The New York Times referred to it as a "cosmic level…of euphemism"10.

Thankfully, most of the news headlines reporting the event have not used the euphemism, with many calling it an "explosion" instead11.

Reader Response (1/20/2025) Dennis Fazio e-mails:

You should also consider [RUD] is just a tongue-in-cheek phrase that was used in a meeting once by one of the engineers who sometimes tend to lean toward these kinds of twists of phrase, and it just grew from there to also be used in their press releases. SpaceX is not an outfit that is embarrassed by their failures―in fact they see them as great learning opportunities. So I don't think it is doublespeak for PR purposes, but just an effort to be different and embrace accidents as a part of the process.

I didn't mean to suggest that RUD was entirely serious, and it's clear that it didn't fool many if any reporters. As doublespeak, it's a bit too obvious to be successful. Moreover, The New York Times had already pointed out that it's a "cosmic level" euphemism almost two years ago, when a previous Starship exploded10. That said, a failure can be an opportunity to learn, but it's still a failure. If the Starship is ever to be a manned vehicle, it needs to stop blowing up.

Notes:

  1. Eric Lagatta, "Despite mid-air explosion after launch, it's not over for SpaceX's Starship", USA Today, 1/17/2025.
  2. "Starship's Seventh Flight Test", SpaceX, 1/16/2025.
  3. "Disassemble", Cambridge Dictionary, accessed: 1/17/2025.
  4. "Disassembly", Cambridge Dictionary, accessed: 1/17/2025.
  5. William Lutz, Doublespeak: From "Revenue Enhancement" to "Terminal Living", How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You (1989), pp. 20 & 258.
  6. William Lutz, Doublespeak Defined: Cut Through the Bull**** and Get the Point (1999), p. 28.
  7. Ibid., p. 1.
  8. Ibid., p. 4.
  9. "rapid unscheduled disassembly", Google Ngram Viewer, accessed: 1/17/2025.
  10. Daniel Victor & Kenneth Chang, "Starship Exploded, but SpaceX Had Reason to Pop Champagne Anyway", The New York Times, 4/20/2023.
  11. For example: Jackie Wattles & Kia Fatahi, "Regulators are investigating reports of property damage from SpaceX Starship's explosion", CNN, 1/18/2025.
January 8th, 2025 (Permalink)

How to Solve a Problem: Reasoning by Cases

To get the most out of this entry, try the following puzzle. This is a moderately difficult puzzle of its type, so don't get discouraged too easily. After you've tried the puzzle, check out my comments below.

Puzzle: Too Many Suspects

Instructions: Victor Timm was not a popular man; no one mourned him when he died. Timm made his living as a blackmailer and his only "friends", as he called them, were those he blackmailed. However, Timm did have a sense of humor, however mordant. On the evening of his demise, which happened to be his birthday, he invited all five of his current "friends" to dine with him. Each of the five took him up on the invitation only because they feared not to. Timm's practical joke was the biggest, and also the last, mistake of his life. At the end of the evening, he was dead, stabbed multiple times by the very knife he had used to carve the roast he had served.

Detective David Davidson was baffled. All five of Timm's dining companions had means, motive, and opportunity. Means: the carving knife; motive: blackmail; opportunity: presence in the house when and where Timm died. Any one of the five could have killed Timm, and perhaps all had done so, or some combination of two or more. How was he supposed to prove whodunnit?

Of course, Davidson interrogated each of the suspects separately, but none had confessed or implicated any of the other four. However, he did determine six facts about the crime. To protect the innocent, I will refer to the five suspects as: Mr. A, Mrs. B, Mr. C, Ms. D, and Mr. E.

  1. Ms. D or Mr. E is guilty of stabbing Timm.
  2. Either Mrs. B or Mr. C are guilty, but not both.
  3. If Mr. A stabbed Timm then so did Mrs. B.
  4. Mr. E is guilty only if Mr. A is too.
  5. Ms. D stabbed Timm if but only if Mr. C is guilty.
  6. If Ms. D did not stab Timm then neither did Mr. E.

Can you help Detective Davidson solve the mystery? Which of the suspects stabbed Timm?

Comments: In the previous entry in this series on problem-solving*, I warned against making false assumptions. However, I also explained that it was sometimes useful to make assumptions, and reasoning by cases is an example. Reasoning by cases is a way of dividing and conquering―see entry six in this series―since it divides a problem into two or more sub-problems, each of which is simpler and easier to solve than the problem as a whole. Moreover, in reasoning by cases, we make a different assumption for each case, giving us additional information for solving it.

Reasoning by cases is also a way of solving a problem by elimination―see entry three in this series―because it breaks a problem down into two or more cases, and then eliminates those cases that cannot be true. So, in the above puzzle solution, the first case was eliminated because it led to a contradiction, which meant that the second case had to be the truth.

To reason by cases, examine the problem to be solved to see if it can be broken down into cases. Specifically, look for disjunctions among the clues, such as the first two clues in the puzzle above. There are two types of disjunction to be on the lookout for: a weak or inclusive and a strong or exclusive disjunction. A weak/inclusive disjunction is one that says at least one of the cases is true, but more than one may be true; in contrast, a strong/exclusive disjunction says that exactly one of the cases is true. The first clue, above, is a weak disjunction and the second is a strong one.

When reasoning by cases, strong disjunctions are better than weak ones, so if you have a choice between using a strong or a weak disjunction to establish cases, choose the strong one. For instance, in the above puzzle, the first clue is a weak disjunction and the second a strong one. The puzzle can be solved using the first clue to establish the cases, but the cases are a bit harder to solve than those arising from the second clue.

It's not just explicit disjunctions that can be used to break a problem down into cases; in fact, each one of the six clues in the above puzzle can be so used, but this is an advanced topic for another time.

* Previous entries in the "How to Solve a Problem" series:

  1. Contraction, 4/6/2023
  2. Think Backwards, 5/5/2023
  3. Solving a Problem by Elimination, 6/20/2023
  4. Climbing Up that Hill, 7/5/2023
  5. Backtracking, 8/14/2023
  6. Divide and Conquer, 9/11/2023
  7. Don't Make an Ass of U and Me, 12/6/2024

Previous Entry