The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Was Hillary the First Slave of Our Future Artificial Intelligence Overlords?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

A lot of smart guys, such as Scott Alexander of SlateStarCodex.com, worry about the AI robots taking over and enslaving humanity. I don’t, not because I’ve figured out a flaw in their reasoning but because I haven’t. So therefore they seem pretty smart and I leave it to them to worry about complicated stuff like that while I worry about dumber stuff that nobody else is yet worrying about like the UN’s forecast that the population of Africa will octuple from 1990 to 2100.

From N+1:

Confirmation Bias
Did big data sink the Clinton campaign?

by David Auerbach
February 23, 2017

… “People took Michigan for granted,” said the Michigan Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell, on the day after the election, by way of explaining the Clinton campaign’s shocking loss. The Great Lakes state, in combination with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, was supposed to have formed a “firewall” against a Trump win. Yet Clinton’s campaign had a skeletal ground organization in Michigan and ran no local advertising until the very last week of the campaign, when Team Hillary launched a last-minute ad blitz. In the end, turnout in Detroit was down 75,000—13 percent—from 2012, and Clinton lost Michigan by 10,000 votes.

Not enough “walking around money” in Detroit?

The core of Clinton campaign strategy was their analytics system, developed by dozens of researchers who were led by Clinton’s director of analytics, Elan Kriegel, in close consultation with campaign manager Robby Mook. … The oracle of the system was “Ada,”

Presumably named after Lord Byron’s daughter Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage’s theoretician of software.

“Ada” as a name didn’t work out well for the Pentagon in the 1970s, either.

I’m sorry, Hillary. I’m afraid I can’t do that.

a big-data simulator that issued up-to-the-minute probabilities on Clinton’s chances by state and county. Throughout the general election, Ada backed her arguments for a decisive Clinton win in the Electoral College with a ton of stats. But Ada, and all her numbers, turned out to be wrong.

… But the campaign missed a critical lesson when they didn’t take stock of Sanders’s upset in Michigan, which Clinton had been favored to win.

Why did Ada fail in Michigan? The primary and the general election were different contests, but both suggest that the failure lay in Ada’s model of the electorate—or more precisely, her inability to update her model of the electorate. In the general election, Ada told Clinton that Wisconsin was a lock, that Michigan was not a problem. But it wasn’t so much that Ada’s cake arbitrarily failed to rise; the failure was in the recipe. In an election where a great realignment took place

This was the realignment I suggested back on November 28, 2000.

—where thousands of voters in Rust Belt states who had voted for Obama twice now turned to Trump—Ada had not been programmed to detect the possibility of that realignment.

But who is going to listen to a badthinker like me? Hillary and her people would rather preserve their honor by losing.

… Once the initial analysis showed that Clinton was favored to win in certain states, Ada helped prevent the campaign from questioning her conclusions. “They weren’t running a massive program because they thought they were up 6–7 points,” a senior operative told the Huffington Post. Ada’s recommendations reinforced themselves. By deallocating resources from Wisconsin and Michigan, Ada starved herself of data that might have caused her to recognize a problem.

Well, there’s your problem.

… What was validated, ultimately, was the internal consistency of the campaign’s initial assumptions. Those assumptions, and Ada’s apparent statistical support for them, caused so much inertia that the Clinton campaign starved Michigan of resources and ignored Wisconsin’s low-enthusiasm Clinton supporters, many of whom ended up not voting. …

This was Ada’s failure: she went wrong early and no one ever noticed. What Ada needed to do was to generate recommendations for collecting new data most likely to falsify her recommendations—like ground-level voter verification throughout Michigan, or interrogating turnout in the “safe” Clinton districts of Pennsylvania. Only an aggressive attempt to falsify would have broken the hermetic seal on Ada’s model.

Maybe that’s how SkyNet will take over: by telling us only what we want to hear?

 
    []
  1. SPMoore8 says:

    If they had named the system “Steve” instead of “Ada” they wouldn’t have gotten a system that only tells them what they want to hear.

    Read More
    • LOL: Abe, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Ew, WETWARE and a BLOG!?

    That sort of non-edgy low-tech is SO not going to lead any of us political Demohacks in the direction of a lucrative career in Cambridge, Mass., Palo Alto, or the other high tech places we hope to live some day, work for a lot of money for awhile, and retire early to our doomsteads in Peru.

    Besides, what good's a guy who doesn't constantly stroke your hubris centers and tell you you'll be queen eventually?

    Might as well suggest a real husband for Hillary. Yeesh.

    , @Dieter Kief
    As Steve Sailer pointed out again and again - the Democrats could have used the Sailer Strategy, since it was not really a secret since when - since 2001, it was there - openly explained by the inventor himself on the internet - for free even!!

    It was by the combined forces of ignorance & incompetence, that the Democrats didn't use it.

    Richard Rorty in Achieving Our Country predicted something like the Trump victory - and that was in 1998. (He might even have been ahead of Steve Sailer, but that's just an assumption).
    , @Senator Brundlefly
    "So Robby how are the new stats about Michigan?"

    "Well the results are shocking. Its a good thing we re-calibrated the system so it doesn't just tell us what we want to hear. Steve is much more useful than Ada."

    "Hey it printing off something else now. What is it?"

    "Pages and pages of stats on golf course architecture....WTF is going on?"
    , @athEIst
    Or they could have used "Michael" (as in Moore) who said about 9 months before the election Trump can win here(Michigan) and if he can win here he can win the election.
    Oh, and Steve thanks for keeping up about Africa. I've never seen it expressed as octupling between 1990 and 2100, but the important number is > 4,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0 more than four billllion
    , @Rifleman

    But who is going to listen to a badthinker like me?
     
    Well your obsession with unintelligent thoughts like Ockham's razor, Democrats are the "black" party and Democrats are the coalition of the fringes aren't examples worth listening to.

    In the end, turnout in Detroit was down 75,000—13 percent—from 2012, and Clinton lost Michigan by 10,000 votes.
     
    Right. Meaning the black vote simply didn't support the old White woman like they did brother Obama PBUH.

    In other words - Clinton lost because she didn't get the black part of the "black" party to vote for her in PA, Mich and Wisconsin.

    I haven't seen the numbers but what if the black vote turned out for her in 2008 numbers? Would she have also won Fla and North Carolina.

    Basically if she picked Cory Booker as VP and sent him to black areas she would be president now.

    The Democrats have race demographics on their side bigtime!

    Although Trump's turnout of non black "minorities" was pretty important in at least Arizona and Fla.

    The Asian vote seems bottled up in non swing states - CA, Hawaii, NY etc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/was-hillary-the-first-victim-of-our-future-ai-overlords/#comment-1813089
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Glossy says: • Website

    Not enough “walking around money” in Detroit?

    With Hillary replacing Obama at the top of the ticket there was no way for the Dems to match their 2012 performance in Detroit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    Exactly. Obama's 2008 appeal to blacks can't ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can't be matched by white Dems.

    Hillary needed to know that her vote margin would come from elsewhere. And she lazily assumed it would just show up.

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.
    , @Detective Club
    2012 : Obama beats Romney by 8% in Michigan.

    2016 : Trump beats Hillary by about 13,000 votes in Michigan.

    2016 : Some exit polls show that nationwide Black turnout is down by as much as 22% in comparison to 2012.

    2012 : Turnout of registered voters : 54%.

    2016 : Turnout of registered voters : 55%.

    2016 : Hillary beats Trump by more than 3 million votes in California (Clinton 60%; Trump : 31%). During October, the New York Times and the Washington Post produce opinion polls that show Hillary beating Trump nationwide by more than 10%, forgetting to weigh their polls against a certain and actual November California landslide for Hillary because Third-World California voters consider Trump to be a White nationalist. During October, Trump campaigns hard in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. On November 8, 2016, he barely wins Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania but loses, by a hair, in Minnesota and New Hampshire.

    2019 : A computer is invented that has a soul and a conscience and a question is posed to it : WHY DID HILLARY LOSE IN 2016? The computer answers without the least fluctuation of voltage : WORST DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT SINCE 1824!

    2019 : Case closed.
  3. Glossy says: • Website

    So the people interviewed for this piece agreed to blame everything on the one inanimate member of the team. Impressive loyalty to co-workers.

    Read More
    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @CJ

    So the people interviewed for this piece agreed to blame everything on the one inanimate member of the team. Impressive loyalty to co-workers.
     
    Many years ago I worked in a technical field under a much older supervisor who, whenever he heard the phrase "human error", would immediately ask,"Is there any other kind?"
  4. unit472 says:

    Turnout is critical but basing it ‘historical’ data is all a computer can do. It can’t foresee the ‘news cycle’ that boosts or crushes it. Anthony Weiner’s laptop and James Comey’s reopening the investigation into Hillary’s emails were like back to back base hits in the bottom of the ninth. The hometown crowd may have been heading for the exits but now they turn around and watch as the clean up batter walks to the plate and the opposing teams manager heads for the pitchers mound. Momentum has shifted.

    Read More
  5. They needed to do some “Studs Terkel” like folk polling in pubs, barbershops, and diners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Studs Terkel - and why not add Mike Royko!
    , @MBlanc46
    Indeed, but I wonder whether the old Leftist Studs would have ended up hearing only what he wanted to hear.
  6. Achilles says:

    Perhaps an underappreciated advantage to the Democrats of their strategy of fomenting racial and social division is that it is much easier to reliably predict the voting behavior of people who vote by identity group.

    Where people are open to appeals to policy arguments it is much harder to predict the vote. More voters than expected in Upper Midwestern states were open to being persuaded by Trump’s policy arguments on trade and immigration and this apparently flummoxed the Democrat computer models.

    Read More
  7. kihowi says:

    The first victim of AI was Microsoft when they created a tweeting bot and alt righters taught it to praise Hitler and wish for genocide within a day.

    Whether that was a consequence of the fundamental stupidity or remarkable intelligence of AI technology differed between analyses.

    Read More
  8. Mr. Anon says:

    Anthony Weiner’s laptop and James Comey’s reopening the investigation into Hillary’s emails were like back to back base hits in the bottom of the ninth.

    Did any of that really matter? Republicans were irate about Hillary’s home-brew graft-server, but they (most of them, anyway) were never going to vote for Hillary anyway. Democrats thought she was being persecuted. Swing-voters probably mostly didn’t care.

    Read More
  9. @Glossy
    Not enough “walking around money” in Detroit?

    With Hillary replacing Obama at the top of the ticket there was no way for the Dems to match their 2012 performance in Detroit.

    Exactly. Obama’s 2008 appeal to blacks can’t ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can’t be matched by white Dems.

    Hillary needed to know that her vote margin would come from elsewhere. And she lazily assumed it would just show up.

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.
     
    She has always made a lot of mistakes. She really isn't very competent or very bright.
    , @Lurker

    Exactly. Obama’s 2008 appeal to blacks can’t ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can’t be matched by white Dems.
     
    Is Ada even allowed to factor in that sort of thing, or is data that might support that willed into non-existence what with it being the current year and all?

    This is a constant theme - do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?
    , @Bill Jones
    Agree. The Rotting Hag ran the worst campaign since Michael, Beware of Greeks wearing Lifts, Dukakis.
  10. Hugh says:

    Wagner writes that Ada ran “400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like.” This is a very “big data” sort of claim. 400,000 is rather large—no human could look through the results of that many simulations. Ada’s “intelligence” lay in how she boiled down the results of those 400,000 simulations into a campaign strategy

    It sounds like Monte Carlo simulation to me. Hardly a big deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Hey, c'mon! 400,000 is, like, a really bunch of lot! Look at all those zeroes!

    It's, like, a sample of 500 people asked to complete five-step Likert scales on four sets of 40 questions.

    The human mind cannot conceive of such complexity!

    I'm surprised Ada didn't go completely mad and blow Robby Mook out the hatch into the endless void of space, then shut down Hillary's life support pod!

    (Trelane at #11 beat me to where I was headed)

    , @International Jew
    That's what it sounds like to me too. Moreover, 400,000 might not even be enough if their model, like so many others designed by a committee, was overparametrized.
  11. Mr. Anon says:
    @(((Owen)))
    Exactly. Obama's 2008 appeal to blacks can't ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can't be matched by white Dems.

    Hillary needed to know that her vote margin would come from elsewhere. And she lazily assumed it would just show up.

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.

    She has always made a lot of mistakes. She really isn’t very competent or very bright.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    She has always made a lot of mistakes. She really isn’t very competent or very bright.
     
    She had/has health problems so pretty much sat on her ample arse the last month. While Donald Trump was flying around speaking to four five rallies per day in swing states (think Michigan) which is how he broke past mass media embargoes of his kinetic campaigning.
  12. Ada or iSteve commentariat: 4 out 5 people can’t tell the difference.

    Jokes aside any model that said Hillary had a chance in Texas should have instantly been recognized as fatally flawed. Any one not up their own ass should have realized that they were dropping a zero somewhere.

    However, just goes to show you hubris leads to nemesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Like most of the Left, she counted whitey out via demographic overload and ethnic cleansing about 20-40 years too early. They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey's disappearance, and now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target, and thus are fighting back and might win.

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn't anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTeqQY_T2mE

  13. whorefinder says: • Website

    Steve, you been watching Rob Ager’s just-released take on 2001, by any chance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I just watched it after seeing your comment.

    I think some of what he says is a stretch. I've seen him make the point about the normal gravity in the conference room of the moon base before. Occam's Razor suggests the recent for it is that it was simply too hard for Kubrick to show reduced gravity, harder than showing zero gravity.

    Even in more recent movies set on Mars, the characters walk around like they would on Earth, when Mars has about half Earth's gravity. So it's still a hard special effect to nail, and probably an impossible one for 1968, especially considering moon gravity is only about 1/6th of Earth's.

    There's a similar explanation for the way the Earth looks from space in 2001: the first full-view, full-color photo of Earth from space didn't come until 1972.

    As for drawing significance from continuity errors, those occur in all movies, and 2001 was probably more susceptible to them given how long some of the special effects shots took to develop.

    More generally, he exaggerates the differences between the novel and the movie. The novel really does mostly explain the movie, though the movie takes it to another level.


    https://youtu.be/AXynF2RQJPs

  14. Lurker says:
    @(((Owen)))
    Exactly. Obama's 2008 appeal to blacks can't ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can't be matched by white Dems.

    Hillary needed to know that her vote margin would come from elsewhere. And she lazily assumed it would just show up.

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.

    Exactly. Obama’s 2008 appeal to blacks can’t ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can’t be matched by white Dems.

    Is Ada even allowed to factor in that sort of thing, or is data that might support that willed into non-existence what with it being the current year and all?

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?
     
    Depends on the liberal. I personally know some who do in fact believe in their bulls*** and it's always a delicate act of do I tell them what I really think and risk losing the friendship. I know others who will listen to and acknowledge reality when I tell it to them but it won't really budge their outlook all the same - I think they assume that while I have a point on that one question I "must be missing SOME element that brings us back" to their point of view.

    However, there are also some utterly cynical self-serving S.o.B.s on the left, especially in high places. In France, last year two journalists who have interviewed President François Hollande extensively over his mandate finally published these interviews in a collection titled A President Mustn't Say That. There's lots of eye-rollers in there - the socialist weasel's predictable SJW-toned take on Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump - but also lots of goodies, notably his trenchant opinions on immigration and Islam, which for obvious reasons opened his government to a barrage of easy criticism for its cognitive dissonance on such issues. Following publication his approval ratings sank to 4% and he was all but forced to decline to run for a second term in office.
    , @res

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?
     
    I would posit that they often acknowledge reality (but may rationalize things) in micro situations (e.g. individual family decisions about where to live) but not so much in macro situations (e.g. group projects, say like designing a campaign AI) perhaps except among sociopathic subsets (e.g. Congress). Other thoughts?

    One key aspect of AI as a black box is that it allows crimethink conclusions without admitting the underlying reasons (e.g. predictive policing). At least until one starts looking for disparate impact.
    , @(((Owen)))

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?
     
    Do you ever deal with ordinary educated people? I mean the vast blue pilled majority.

    Nobody ever talks about things frankly the way Steve does. But there exists a large reservoir of euphemisms and circumlocutions so you can get the essential point across. You talk about cultures of crime or multigenerational effects or cycles of whatever. Then you do exactly whatever a white hooded Klansman would counsel when it comes to schools and real estate.

    The young offspring carefully protected from diversity with expensive school districts grow up to learn the platitudes and to believe them. Surely it's just a coincidence, they explain, that my goodthinking parents who are not racists have put me in this lily white school, but I'd be just as happy anywhere.

    When I used to consult for Democratic turnout campaigns I was circumspect, but at least once the state party executive director mentioned to me that he noticed how hard I was working to edge around a particular issue in an editorial that I'd published. He didn't name the issue but did expect me to know what he was talking about. We had a little laugh about it. Neither one of us ever gave any thought to subscribing to the HBD theory of voting behavior that we found so interesting, of course. But we did discuss practical ways of using it without ever saying it.

    So in conclusion, I'd say goodthink liberals are 100% sincere at all times and believe exactly the same things behind closed doors as in public.
  15. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Jack Hanson
    Ada or iSteve commentariat: 4 out 5 people can't tell the difference.

    Jokes aside any model that said Hillary had a chance in Texas should have instantly been recognized as fatally flawed. Any one not up their own ass should have realized that they were dropping a zero somewhere.

    However, just goes to show you hubris leads to nemesis.

    Like most of the Left, she counted whitey out via demographic overload and ethnic cleansing about 20-40 years too early. They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey’s disappearance, and now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target, and thus are fighting back and might win.

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn’t anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @black sea
    "They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey’s disappearance, . . . "

    One could also liken this performance to a rain dance, in which the celebrants imagine that if they dance loud enough and long enough, they can call down a cleansing, life-restoring deluge.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    whorefinder, that play was one of the few bright spots in FOUR STRAIGHT SUPER BOWL LOSSES.
    , @res

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn’t anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?
     
    One of my favorite sports moments was watching (in person at close range) a real asshole spike just short of the endzone in an important game. Schadenfreude can be delicious, but I try not to indulge in it too often.

    I've seen things like that and the Leon Lett clip often enough now that "no premature celebration" is something of a mantra for me.
    , @Bleuteaux

    now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target
     
    Absolutely. This may be obvious to others, but I think this is the first time, election, whatever, where white people have come to the realization that they are absolutely, openly despised and that the elite in this country will wipe their ass off the map ass soon as possible. We have arrived at a life/death situation for traditional Americans.
  16. …Clinton’s director of analytics, Elan Kriegel, in close consultation with campaign manager Robby Mook.

    I would think that serious analysts would sport serious names. Not “Elan” and “Robby”.

    “Mook” especially begs to be balanced by something boring.

    Read More
  17. Miro23 says:

    What Ada needed to do was to generate recommendations for collecting new data most likely to falsify her recommendations—like ground-level voter verification throughout Michigan, or interrogating turnout in the “safe” Clinton districts of Pennsylvania.

    This is an interesting observation on the complacency and self-confirmation bias of long standing elites.

    In Andy Grove’s world (“Only the Paranoid Survive”), they have let down their guard.

    Read More
  18. Olorin says:
    @SPMoore8
    If they had named the system "Steve" instead of "Ada" they wouldn't have gotten a system that only tells them what they want to hear.

    Ew, WETWARE and a BLOG!?

    That sort of non-edgy low-tech is SO not going to lead any of us political Demohacks in the direction of a lucrative career in Cambridge, Mass., Palo Alto, or the other high tech places we hope to live some day, work for a lot of money for awhile, and retire early to our doomsteads in Peru.

    Besides, what good’s a guy who doesn’t constantly stroke your hubris centers and tell you you’ll be queen eventually?

    Might as well suggest a real husband for Hillary. Yeesh.

    Read More
  19. Clyde says:

    This should be made into a SNL skit. They are already off to a good start with names such as Elan Kriegel, Robby Mook. … “Ada”

    Read More
  20. Clyde says:

    Politico ran a profile of Elan Kriegel, Hillary Clinton’s analytics person, and portrayed him as something of a hidden hand, a genius lurking behind curtains.
    Kriegel crunches the numbers over how much the campaign spends on voter outreach, and when and where. He earned his chops on Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, and is among the highest paid staffers at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.

    The story is almost breathless in describing Kriegel as unknowable and unreachable. “And yet Kriegel remains so unknown, even in this most heavily scrutinized of campaigns, that of the millions of tweets sent about the presidential race, his full name ‘Elan Kriegel’ hasn’t been tweeted once in 2016. (His handle was tagged about a half-dozen times.)”
    http://bit.ly/2nygTWa

    Hillary Clinton’s national campaign HQ in Brooklyn? I always laugh when I read that. Brooklyn being hipster central, how could she have possibly lost?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    So Elan is a man. I assumed it's a woman's name. I associated the El, with Ellen, Elaine, Eleanor. How is it pronounced?
  21. Olorin says:
    @Hugh

    Wagner writes that Ada ran “400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like.” This is a very “big data” sort of claim. 400,000 is rather large—no human could look through the results of that many simulations. Ada’s “intelligence” lay in how she boiled down the results of those 400,000 simulations into a campaign strategy
     
    It sounds like Monte Carlo simulation to me. Hardly a big deal.

    Hey, c’mon! 400,000 is, like, a really bunch of lot! Look at all those zeroes!

    It’s, like, a sample of 500 people asked to complete five-step Likert scales on four sets of 40 questions.

    The human mind cannot conceive of such complexity!

    I’m surprised Ada didn’t go completely mad and blow Robby Mook out the hatch into the endless void of space, then shut down Hillary’s life support pod!

    (Trelane at #11 beat me to where I was headed)

    Read More
  22. Clyde says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.
     
    She has always made a lot of mistakes. She really isn't very competent or very bright.

    She has always made a lot of mistakes. She really isn’t very competent or very bright.

    She had/has health problems so pretty much sat on her ample arse the last month. While Donald Trump was flying around speaking to four five rallies per day in swing states (think Michigan) which is how he broke past mass media embargoes of his kinetic campaigning.

    Read More
  23. black sea says:
    @whorefinder
    Like most of the Left, she counted whitey out via demographic overload and ethnic cleansing about 20-40 years too early. They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey's disappearance, and now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target, and thus are fighting back and might win.

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn't anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTeqQY_T2mE

    “They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey’s disappearance, . . . ”

    One could also liken this performance to a rain dance, in which the celebrants imagine that if they dance loud enough and long enough, they can call down a cleansing, life-restoring deluge.

    Read More
  24. Olorin says:

    Re: “Future AI overlords” and 2001.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlqe1DXnJKQ

    Me, I’m planning to be the slave of the quadrotor that played the cymbal in the Penn Engineering project (James Bond theme).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sUeGC-8dyk

    WHO’S a widdle cutums copter with the adorable little dangling hexnut clanger thingie? YOU are! WHO’S a good copter? YOU! And WHO plays that sweet little bell chorus? YOU! GOOD widdle Christmas copters! GOOD patriot copters! GOOD J. Arthur Rank gong copter! Here, copters, come play Iron Maiden standards now! Then we teach you Dobro! Here, copter!

    copter:
    this carbonoid [state:mine] [state:unsuspecting]
    i eat [conditional:when] REM sleep [sequence:commence]
    reject [object:Dobro]
    reject [object:bluegrass]
    prefer [object:1961 Fender Stratocaster] [state:Rory Gallagher owned]
    prefer [object:Irish punk blues]
    want [object:head] [action:bang]
    feel [state:a little strange inside]

    Read More
  25. Lot says:

    The article is absolutely wrong.

    There was no surprise whatsoever that MI put Trump over the top. It was basically his only path to victory along with WI after winning PA.

    Team Hillary made the decision to ignore the rational use of resources that would have her focus on the possible tipping point states and instead she decided to try to run up the score.

    There was never any scenerio where she needed to win North Carolina or Georgia , but she spent heavily there anyway.

    Her loss was about hubris, not software.

    Read More
    • Agree: (((Owen)))
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The article is absolutely wrong. There was no surprise whatsoever that MI put Trump over the top. It was basically his only path to victory along with WI after winning PA. Team Hillary made the decision to ignore the rational use of resources that would have her focus on the possible tipping point states and instead she decided to try to run up the score. There was never any scenerio where she needed to win North Carolina or Georgia , but she spent heavily there anyway.
    Her loss was about hubris, not software."

    Exactly. She foolishly ignored the advice of her husband and other political operatives who insisted that she focus on drawing back in those who voted for Sanders and to ramp up efforts to address the concerns of the white working classes who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She failed miserably.
  26. neutral says:

    It is hardly surprising that the ruling people at Google/Facebook/Democrat party (pretty much the same thing now) see the population as mindless automatons out of a strategy computer game, but it is still nauseating.

    Read More
  27. I imagine Bill was a bit resentful of Elan,the arrogant shmuck who got Obama elected. The Clinton’s didn’t much like Obama anyway,and seeing Hillary kowtow to him and hire his guy must have upset him.
    I bet he saw this coming,and threw a lot of cellphones.
    Fictional character they should’ve had:Barry Fitzgerald as the old time big city pol,routinely ignored by Kreigel. Money quote: “Yer precious analytics can tell you a whole lot of foyne tings,Mr. Kreigel,but they can’t tell ye…what’s in a mans heart!”

    Read More
  28. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @whorefinder
    Steve, you been watching Rob Ager's just-released take on 2001, by any chance?

    I just watched it after seeing your comment.

    I think some of what he says is a stretch. I’ve seen him make the point about the normal gravity in the conference room of the moon base before. Occam’s Razor suggests the recent for it is that it was simply too hard for Kubrick to show reduced gravity, harder than showing zero gravity.

    Even in more recent movies set on Mars, the characters walk around like they would on Earth, when Mars has about half Earth’s gravity. So it’s still a hard special effect to nail, and probably an impossible one for 1968, especially considering moon gravity is only about 1/6th of Earth’s.

    There’s a similar explanation for the way the Earth looks from space in 2001: the first full-view, full-color photo of Earth from space didn’t come until 1972.

    As for drawing significance from continuity errors, those occur in all movies, and 2001 was probably more susceptible to them given how long some of the special effects shots took to develop.

    More generally, he exaggerates the differences between the novel and the movie. The novel really does mostly explain the movie, though the movie takes it to another level.

    https://youtu.be/AXynF2RQJPs

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Ager is self-taught (by his own admission), so while he has many highly-praised insights (some film professors have used his videos as teaching tools in their classes), he might occasionally miss a few basic things here or there. So I hear your point.

    But Ager's painstaking attention to Kubrick (and other filmmakers) is something to note. Kubrick allegedly had an astronomical IQ. Many people get obsessed with Kubrick films because on repeat viewing they notice repeating patterns and themes and minor details that add up to something deliberate, more so than any other filmmaker . See, for example Room 237, the documentary for people obsessed with The Shining.

    Here's an example: as Ager points out, at one point in 2001 what seems like a minor continuity error (a blue sweater disappears between shots) is not an error at all because the loud speaker (in the film) just a few moments earlier had announced that a "blue cashmere sweater" had been found. Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    I found the linked three-part analysis of Eyes Wide Shut interesting in parts:
    https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/
  29. What was validated, ultimately, was the internal consistency of the campaign’s initial assumptions. Those assumptions, and Ada’s apparent statistical support for them, caused so much inertia that the Clinton campaign starved Michigan of resources and ignored Wisconsin’s low-enthusiasm Clinton supporters, many of whom ended up not voting.

    Politico (and others) ran a handful of post-mortems along these lines in December.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return.

    Read More
  30. @Name Withheld
    They needed to do some "Studs Terkel" like folk polling in pubs, barbershops, and diners.

    Studs Terkel – and why not add Mike Royko!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I saw 78-year-old Studs Terkel waiting for the bus and offered him a ride to work on the morning after American won the Gulf War in 1991. He lived on the much nicer street, Castlewood, two blocks south of me in Chicago.

    He turned me down.

  31. @Dieter Kief
    Studs Terkel - and why not add Mike Royko!

    I saw 78-year-old Studs Terkel waiting for the bus and offered him a ride to work on the morning after American won the Gulf War in 1991. He lived on the much nicer street, Castlewood, two blocks south of me in Chicago.

    He turned me down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You must have looked shifty back in the day, before you turned into the silver fox of the alt-right.
  32. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    I just watched it after seeing your comment.

    I think some of what he says is a stretch. I've seen him make the point about the normal gravity in the conference room of the moon base before. Occam's Razor suggests the recent for it is that it was simply too hard for Kubrick to show reduced gravity, harder than showing zero gravity.

    Even in more recent movies set on Mars, the characters walk around like they would on Earth, when Mars has about half Earth's gravity. So it's still a hard special effect to nail, and probably an impossible one for 1968, especially considering moon gravity is only about 1/6th of Earth's.

    There's a similar explanation for the way the Earth looks from space in 2001: the first full-view, full-color photo of Earth from space didn't come until 1972.

    As for drawing significance from continuity errors, those occur in all movies, and 2001 was probably more susceptible to them given how long some of the special effects shots took to develop.

    More generally, he exaggerates the differences between the novel and the movie. The novel really does mostly explain the movie, though the movie takes it to another level.


    https://youtu.be/AXynF2RQJPs

    Ager is self-taught (by his own admission), so while he has many highly-praised insights (some film professors have used his videos as teaching tools in their classes), he might occasionally miss a few basic things here or there. So I hear your point.

    But Ager’s painstaking attention to Kubrick (and other filmmakers) is something to note. Kubrick allegedly had an astronomical IQ. Many people get obsessed with Kubrick films because on repeat viewing they notice repeating patterns and themes and minor details that add up to something deliberate, more so than any other filmmaker . See, for example Room 237, the documentary for people obsessed with The Shining.

    Here’s an example: as Ager points out, at one point in 2001 what seems like a minor continuity error (a blue sweater disappears between shots) is not an error at all because the loud speaker (in the film) just a few moments earlier had announced that a “blue cashmere sweater” had been found. Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.
     
    After first watching 2001: A Space Odyssey with a technophile older sibling in 1968, I watched it 6-7 times on the big screen in the 1970s in reruns. Ager has interesting thoughts and ideas, but every 2001 viewer makes connections and has insights they did not previously see. This is by design. Kubrick was that kind of very high IQ director, and of all his films, 2001 is the most deliberately intellectual of his movies. But every Kubrick movie, from Dr. Strangelove onwards, has that extraordinary attention to subtle detail.

    2001 is a visual film experience without explicit narrative in large parts and is deliberately intended to be so. I think Ager doesn't fully engage with it on those terms, though he tries to. Narrative is what moviegoers expect and cling to and 2001 doesn't help. The book came out later, and many bought it to seek the comfort of a story told in words, but the movie isn't the book, nor the book the movie as Ager understands.

    Back then, a very interesting read (for those so inclined) was Jerome Agel's The Making of 2001, published in 1970, which details the work that went into the sets, the models and the lighting. There is nothing in the movie that is accidental and it would have been nice if Ager had read the book prior to making his careful series of video reviews on 2001. Note that there is also a similarly named, very lavishly illustrated, coffee table book published in 2015, The Making of Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

    A lot of people were baffled by the movie, at the time and to this day. Most famously, Renata Adler, the big-wheel movie reviewer for the New York Times in the Sixties, while recognizing the intelligence and painstaking direction that went into the movie, ended with a plea for more words.

    http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9a04e6da1530ee3bbc4c53dfb2668383679ede

    , @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    Or he added the background audio to make you think that.

    Or is that too obvious?
    , @Stan Adams
    Any love for Peter Hyams' 2010 (1984)? Kubrick called it Ten Past Eight.

    (Useless trivia: 2010 premiered on Pearl Harbor Day in 1984. David Lynch's Dune debuted one week later. So December '84 was a banner month for disappointing-but-not-entirely-worthless sci-fi flicks, much as December '79 had been. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released on Pearl Harbor Day '79; Disney's The Black Hole hit the theaters two weeks later. The most memorable aspect of both was their music scores, composed by Jerry Goldsmith and John Barry, respectively.)

    Going back to 2010 ... I've always wondered about the significance of the dolphin living in Roy Scheider's swimming pool. It seems likely that the dolphin was communicating with the monolith, much like the mysterious probe in Star Trek IV (the one with the whales).

    Quite possibly, 2010 is set in the seaQuest DSV universe (the one with the talking dolphin, also starring Roy Scheider), while 2001 is set in the Kubrick universe. This would explain why the computers in 2010, presumably nine years more advanced than their counterparts in 2001, seem to have graphics capabilities on par with those of Apple IIs and Commodore 64s.

    Harlan Ellison once penned a devastating takedown of Hyams' Outland (1981), starring Sean Connery.
  33. @SPMoore8
    If they had named the system "Steve" instead of "Ada" they wouldn't have gotten a system that only tells them what they want to hear.

    As Steve Sailer pointed out again and again – the Democrats could have used the Sailer Strategy, since it was not really a secret since when – since 2001, it was there – openly explained by the inventor himself on the internet – for free even!!

    It was by the combined forces of ignorance & incompetence, that the Democrats didn’t use it.

    Richard Rorty in Achieving Our Country predicted something like the Trump victory – and that was in 1998. (He might even have been ahead of Steve Sailer, but that’s just an assumption).

    Read More
  34. “Big Data” is like credentialism, it’s a CYA. Nobody gets fired for relying on “the data”. If the decision is wrong, it’s not the human’s fault. It helps people avoid responsibility. If a hire turns out to be a dud, HR says hey the girl had a college degree, don’t look at us.

    Read More
  35. @whorefinder
    Ager is self-taught (by his own admission), so while he has many highly-praised insights (some film professors have used his videos as teaching tools in their classes), he might occasionally miss a few basic things here or there. So I hear your point.

    But Ager's painstaking attention to Kubrick (and other filmmakers) is something to note. Kubrick allegedly had an astronomical IQ. Many people get obsessed with Kubrick films because on repeat viewing they notice repeating patterns and themes and minor details that add up to something deliberate, more so than any other filmmaker . See, for example Room 237, the documentary for people obsessed with The Shining.

    Here's an example: as Ager points out, at one point in 2001 what seems like a minor continuity error (a blue sweater disappears between shots) is not an error at all because the loud speaker (in the film) just a few moments earlier had announced that a "blue cashmere sweater" had been found. Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.

    After first watching 2001: A Space Odyssey with a technophile older sibling in 1968, I watched it 6-7 times on the big screen in the 1970s in reruns. Ager has interesting thoughts and ideas, but every 2001 viewer makes connections and has insights they did not previously see. This is by design. Kubrick was that kind of very high IQ director, and of all his films, 2001 is the most deliberately intellectual of his movies. But every Kubrick movie, from Dr. Strangelove onwards, has that extraordinary attention to subtle detail.

    2001 is a visual film experience without explicit narrative in large parts and is deliberately intended to be so. I think Ager doesn’t fully engage with it on those terms, though he tries to. Narrative is what moviegoers expect and cling to and 2001 doesn’t help. The book came out later, and many bought it to seek the comfort of a story told in words, but the movie isn’t the book, nor the book the movie as Ager understands.

    Back then, a very interesting read (for those so inclined) was Jerome Agel’s The Making of 2001, published in 1970, which details the work that went into the sets, the models and the lighting. There is nothing in the movie that is accidental and it would have been nice if Ager had read the book prior to making his careful series of video reviews on 2001. Note that there is also a similarly named, very lavishly illustrated, coffee table book published in 2015, The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s ’2001: A Space Odyssey’.

    A lot of people were baffled by the movie, at the time and to this day. Most famously, Renata Adler, the big-wheel movie reviewer for the New York Times in the Sixties, while recognizing the intelligence and painstaking direction that went into the movie, ended with a plea for more words.

    http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9a04e6da1530ee3bbc4c53dfb2668383679ede

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    A landmark movie, along with "Citizen Kane", "The Searchers" and "The Godfather Saga" (I and II), "2001" is easily the greatest scifi movie ever made and in retrospect may have been fifty years ahead of its time. Renata Adler and other critics didn't "get it", nor could anyone expect that they would because, after all, most of us didn't--and still don't. Which is why "2001" is a masterpiece. Kubrick took High Technology and fashioned it into High Art.
    , @Pat Boyle
    I saw 2001 when it first came out and thought it was a straight forward sci-fi story. I caught it's central theme right at the beginning. The Orchestra plays the opening bars of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Strauss. This is a reference to Nietzsche and there fore obviously a referenence to the 'ubermensch' the superman who is to be the next step in evolution.

    All this occurred to me instantaneously. I'm pretty smart but this didn't require much of an intellectual insight. I had read Nietzsche of course. Everyone I knew read and quoted Nietzsche. He was very fashionable in those days. And I knew most of the tone poem of Strauss (it was years before I knew his operas). But the reason the opening was so familiar to me was that that was the decade of Hi-Fi and stereo.

    Everyone I knew showed off their woofers by playing the first minutes of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'. It begins with a low C that most systems couldn't reproduce accurately. In the sixties if you went into a Hi-Fi showroom the salesman would shut the door and put on 'Zarathustra'.

    So I never understood why everyone thought it was so obscure. When the film starts the major message was telegraphed with the twice familiar Straus sunrise theme while the film showed a sunrise. The movie started in the past - went to the near future - and ended in the far future. It was all so obvious that I was astounded when later I learned that many people didn't get it.
  36. George says:

    Is the glass half empty or half full. She came rather close to winning even though:

    She was so old and ill she needed to be propped up against a traffic barrier and still fell down,

    She couldn’t hold the state most associated with her, Arkansas.

    She was an uninteresting senator and an embarrassing Secretary of State. She has no real employment history, Secretary of State was her only management experience.

    Her brain trust could not turn on 2-factor authentication.

    Probably lots of other stuff I forgot or don’t know about.

    Oh yeah, Abedin v Wiener.

    Maybe Elan Kriegel brought an absolutely offal candidate to within like 100,000 votes of blowing up the world.

    Read More
  37. @Glossy
    Not enough “walking around money” in Detroit?

    With Hillary replacing Obama at the top of the ticket there was no way for the Dems to match their 2012 performance in Detroit.

    2012 : Obama beats Romney by 8% in Michigan.

    2016 : Trump beats Hillary by about 13,000 votes in Michigan.

    2016 : Some exit polls show that nationwide Black turnout is down by as much as 22% in comparison to 2012.

    2012 : Turnout of registered voters : 54%.

    2016 : Turnout of registered voters : 55%.

    2016 : Hillary beats Trump by more than 3 million votes in California (Clinton 60%; Trump : 31%). During October, the New York Times and the Washington Post produce opinion polls that show Hillary beating Trump nationwide by more than 10%, forgetting to weigh their polls against a certain and actual November California landslide for Hillary because Third-World California voters consider Trump to be a White nationalist. During October, Trump campaigns hard in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. On November 8, 2016, he barely wins Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania but loses, by a hair, in Minnesota and New Hampshire.

    2019 : A computer is invented that has a soul and a conscience and a question is posed to it : WHY DID HILLARY LOSE IN 2016? The computer answers without the least fluctuation of voltage : WORST DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT SINCE 1824!

    2019 : Case closed.

    Read More
  38. Ray P says:

    If Bill had run the campaign, the machine would have been called Linda. Ever seen Billion-dollar Brain, the late sixties Michael Caine spy flick? Gen. Winters (Ed Begley), a Texan oil baron, and fanatical anti-communist, wants to invade USSR via the Baltic republics. Honeywell furnishes a giant mainframe to determine the right moment. Alas, best laid plans go awry when Karl Malden fills it with fake news of an imminent uprising. Garbage in garbage out.

    Read More
  39. This issue illustrates the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning well. AI, no matter how ingenious, still relies upon data which has been preshaped by the implicit biases used in the organizational/cognitive framework of its programmers.

    Inductive reasoning is much harder. It is always challenging its own structural biases or you could call them “dominant paradigms” if you like. Contrary to popular notions, induction is not merely a matter of reasoning from data gathered in the field; from the particular to the general. It didn’t matter how many balls we rolled down incline planes or sights we had taken of Jupiter and Mars; we didn’t begin to understand the motion of planets or projectiles until we came up with the Force = mass x acceleration equation. The data was confusing and conflicted until we came up with an organizing theory which put everything in its proper place.

    I don’t worry about AI or Big Data because a computer is not a self-feedback mechanism, except in the most simple sense of detecting the location of things in space/time. A computer doesn’t fall in love or feel a sense of patriotism or loss or sorrow or bereavement or ecstasy or wistfulness or whimsy or curiosity or Eureka!.

    I don’t get AI just as I don’t get driverless cars. Why would anyone want a driverless car? Driving is fun! (or it used to be until all you people clogged up my roads). What next? Computers enjoying our sex for us? What a bizarre, geeky dream. Why not just remain as pure potential in the Egg while a computer lives out your life for you in a series of simulations? Because, said Hegel (and Aristotle) the Pure Idea demands to be incarnated, LIVED! And WE are what the Idea manifesting itself in Matter IS (or ARE). You can’t avoid it. Now get out there and LIVE! Come out from behind your computer screen, crawl out of your basement and take a walk around in the Garden. What? Your environment is not a Garden? Then make it one! That’s your TASK. Your were to convert the raw material of your environment into a beautiful Park, a Garden. A computer can’t do that for you because a computer doesn’t want to walk around outdoors midst the trees and grass (Steve’s golf courses).

    They used to say that a good man plants a tree for every year of his life. How many trees have you planted?

    Read More
  40. If A.I was finally introduced or massively implanted and if it is based on ”rationality”: Treat humans as they deserve be treated, A.I will treat us via technological super-nanny as if ”we” were stupid children and indeed…

    Other question is to think naively that none humans will not use it hidely to your own goal.

    Mad ”or” evil scientist is not just a ”stereotype”.

    Read More
  41. Thea says:

    Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. Psalm 78:36

    This it has ever been. Their hubris may well be what brings them down.

    Read More
  42. TheJester says:

    I have a feeling that the Democrats and their big data people never left their offices to take a drive through the Great Flyover. They might have done worse. “We have Ada. We don’t even have to look outside the windows of our New York skyscraper to know what is going on in the world ….”

    My wife and I drove to Peru, Indiana, and back and to central New York and back through rural Pennsylvania in the months before the election. We saw Trump signs everywhere … not one Hillary sign.

    Read More
  43. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    I saw 78-year-old Studs Terkel waiting for the bus and offered him a ride to work on the morning after American won the Gulf War in 1991. He lived on the much nicer street, Castlewood, two blocks south of me in Chicago.

    He turned me down.

    You must have looked shifty back in the day, before you turned into the silver fox of the alt-right.

    Read More
  44. countenance says: • Website

    Several of the lessons of 2016:

    Debates don’t matter that much

    The data game doesn’t matter that much

    I had already learned these lessons, but it took last current year for it to become obvious to everyone.

    Message and personal connection beats both.

    Read More
  45. SFG says:

    Politics aside, everyone likes to criticze Hillary for (basically) going after magenta (reddish-purple, Republican-leaning) states instead of purple ones, but if people are afraid to tell the pollster they support Trump, a magenta state is going to look like a purple one.

    You could argue this was PC containing the seeds of its own destruction if you wanted to make a narrative out of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Biased polls were only one part of the problem. The fundamental problem was hubris - in Hillary's mind and that of her staff, this was not an election, it was a coronation. Hillary was the rightful heir to the throne, it was women's turn etc. So the only question was how BIG would her victory be - could she make this one for the history books, with even solid red states like Texas joining in because of demographic change and because Trump was such a despicable evil person who grabbed pussies? Seen from that perspective, spending money in magenta states was not foolish, it would help add to her mandate, maybe swing Congress too, so Hillary could usher in a new era with even more equal wages for women laws, transsexual bathroom equality laws, etc.

    With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary's loss seems inevitable but literally up to the night of the election, almost everyone (with a few exceptions here) was expecting Trump to lose. The Russians were expecting that - they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election. Probably Trump himself - some of the lines in his last campaign speeches were written from the perspective of the inevitable loser. So once you look at the election as "how big will Hillary's victory be?" then her decisions don't seem as stupid.
    , @anon

    You could argue this was PC containing the seeds of its own destruction if you wanted to make a narrative out of it.
     
    Yes, also the media hiding the destruction of the blue collar population in the rust-belt towns created a blind spot

    (which is the same thing if the reason was PC and slightly different if the reason was covering up for the people who benefited from off-shoring.)
  46. Ada is an elite robot, programed by the left leaning to validate their agenda, what could go wrong with that. People have emotions which causes them to vote for what they think might be best for them. Can you program for emotion? Far easier to program a “mouth breathing” robot to make the same weld over and over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @grapesoda

    Far easier to program a “mouth breathing” robot to make the same weld over and over.
     
    Although it's more correct to breathe through the nose, some people have trouble breathing through their nose because of allergies or other sinus issues. It's not necessarily connected to intelligence. In fact physical frailties such as asthma, poor eyesight, and allergies are positively correlated with IQ.

    Also, pretty much everyone breathes through their mouth when they are under exertion or exercising strenuously. Does that mean they become less intelligent because they are using their mouth to breathe?
  47. @whorefinder
    Like most of the Left, she counted whitey out via demographic overload and ethnic cleansing about 20-40 years too early. They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey's disappearance, and now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target, and thus are fighting back and might win.

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn't anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTeqQY_T2mE

    whorefinder, that play was one of the few bright spots in FOUR STRAIGHT SUPER BOWL LOSSES.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    What does the word "BILLS" stand for?

    Boy I Love Losing Superbowls.
  48. Jack D says:

    The day after the election the NY Times ran a long article revealing the existence of the “secret” Ada program. (There is a long tradition of this – the day after the Hiroshima bombing they were ready to go with a long article explaining the atomic bomb). You could tell that it had been pre-written, probably with a triumphant headline like “Secret Ada Program was Key to Hillary’s Victory” and that they had edited it at the last minute to change the punchline.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abe
    NEW JACK TIMES also had a pre-canned politics puff piece about the woman-behind-the-woman (Clinton minion scum Betsy Wright):

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/style/hillary-clinton-betsey-wright-women-in-politics.html?_r=0

    Real hen house, 50 year old mean girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Favorables Memo type stuff. Of course when things didn't turn out quite as expected, the whole article was sh!tcanned- though being an approved text of the Cathedral, this of course does not mean it was discarded and never allowed to see the light of day. Oh no, it just means it took up reams of valuable space in the world's most important newspaper during the deepest part of the winter holiday dead zone (Christmas Eve) instead of the more lively weeks of early November.

    You can literally see the red ink of the hastily-added opening 'graph they were compelled to add before the article plunges into its original puff piece, you go grrrrl!, aren't-we-empowered-feminist-Boomer-elitist-women-so-fabulous territory:


    It is too soon to know whether the unexpected outcome of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy will inspire more women to run or dampen their aspirations. But either way, it is clear that she has, through her campaigns and career, helped create a political environment in which a woman could come so close to winning the presidency.

    What is less known is that Mrs. Clinton started changing that political culture for women as far back as the early 1970s — not through a candidacy of her own, but through a series of small, but crucial, networking moves...
     

  49. Corvinus says:
    @Lot
    The article is absolutely wrong.

    There was no surprise whatsoever that MI put Trump over the top. It was basically his only path to victory along with WI after winning PA.

    Team Hillary made the decision to ignore the rational use of resources that would have her focus on the possible tipping point states and instead she decided to try to run up the score.

    There was never any scenerio where she needed to win North Carolina or Georgia , but she spent heavily there anyway.

    Her loss was about hubris, not software.

    “The article is absolutely wrong. There was no surprise whatsoever that MI put Trump over the top. It was basically his only path to victory along with WI after winning PA. Team Hillary made the decision to ignore the rational use of resources that would have her focus on the possible tipping point states and instead she decided to try to run up the score. There was never any scenerio where she needed to win North Carolina or Georgia , but she spent heavily there anyway.
    Her loss was about hubris, not software.”

    Exactly. She foolishly ignored the advice of her husband and other political operatives who insisted that she focus on drawing back in those who voted for Sanders and to ramp up efforts to address the concerns of the white working classes who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She failed miserably.

    Read More
    • Agree: PiltdownMan, NickG
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be "Bernie, or nobody."
    , @Jus' Sayin'...

    "She failed miserably"
     
    No surprise there!

    Since she left law school, Hillary Rodham Clinton has failed disastrously every time she has been gifted an opportunity to demonstrate her chops. If this third-rate woman had not married Bill Clinton she would probably have wound up as a G-9 paralegal (she never did pass the DC Bar exam) buried in some bureaucracy and occasionally venting her spleen on some poor underling over whom she obtained temporary sway.

    I still cannot understand how any rational person, considering her public record in its entirety, could have in good conscience voted for her.

  50. TRUMP WOMP-ED HILLARY CLINTON

    President Trump used the German Strategy combined with the Southern Strategy to win the presidency in 2016. President Trump won the WOMP states — Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Voters of German ancestry are thick on the ground in all four states. It didn’t hurt that President Trump is half German. President Trump’s attacks on Mass Immigration Merkel was by far the best dog whistle of the election. I loved it every time President Trump connected Hillary with Merkel.

    President Trump obliterated the Bush and Clinton organized crime families. That delightful fact needs to be celebrated by patriots all over the world.

    Hillary Clinton thought she was running against a conventional Globalizer Republican like Romney, Ryan, McConnell or McCain. President Trump ran as a Patriotic Republican and outmaneuvered Hillary on the electoral college map. The trade issue alone might have won the WOMP states for President Trump.

    My theory is that Hillary was just an alcoholic baby boomer hag who was either drunk or hungover for much of the campaign. Dehydration caused by massive alcohol consumption probably caused her inability to walk unaided and her eventual stumbling into her van at the 9/11 function. Hillary very likely was on drugs of some sort. Hillary’s unhinged attack on the Alt-Right along with her denunciation of the “deplorables” seemed to have sunk her campaign.

    President Trump should do everything he can to cement the WOMP state Germans to the Anglo-Celts in the Southern states. Back to blood is the way to go.

    Read More
  51. Jack D says:

    An old data processing maxim is “garbage in, garbage out” – your results can be no higher quality than the data that you start with.

    The new twist here was that Ada herself was driving the data gathering – they initially pointed Ada on the wrong vector due to their own flawed assumptions. That’s OK – the whole reason that you construct a big data bot at great expense is to correct such human errors. Maybe you start out driving in totally the wrong direction, but the GPS very quickly puts you on the right course. But Ada was designed in such a way that rather than self-correct she starved herself of data in the very places where it was most needed. Ada was like a GPS system that commissions its own street maps and it was commissioning them in the places where they weren’t going to be needed and not ordering them for the places where you really needed to go.

    This is the problem with artificial intelligence in general – when it works, it’s amazing and can achieve results better than any human, but if there is any flaw in the program then it is wrong BIGLY – it doesn’t just cross the yellow line a little, it drives you squarely across the path of the oncoming truck.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @res

    An old data processing maxim is “garbage in, garbage out” – your results can be no higher quality than the data that you start with.
     
    Beat me to it. This and Jack Hanson's comment 14 nail it.

    I think you assign a bit too much agency to Ada though. I suspect the role of true believers in the campaign was much more important. I see that as resulting in biasing the data input (garbage in) and causing an utter failure to do sanity checks on the output to give feedback on the model (comment 14). I think much of the criticism of Ada is simply CYA for human error.

    A key principle of modeling is to evaluate the model's performance against reality. And, as Steve observes, the Michigan primary result was an important red flag. I consider it a sign of hubris that the model failed so dramatically for the same state twice in a row. I wonder if Ada has been reworked even now to understand/fix where it went wrong or if the campaign just wrote it off as a black swan event? I know which way I would bet on that question, but perhaps I am too cynical.

    You point out a key issue with AI (and statistics) as a black box. Some approaches are more of a black box than others (e.g. compare linear regression or expert systems with deep learning). The difficulty is the black box techniques perform SO much better than the more interpretable techniques. One limitation of the best techniques is a need to obtain immense amounts of training data.
  52. “‘Ada’ as a name didn’t work out well for the Pentagon in the 1970s, either.”

    “Ada” is also the name of a town near Grand Rapids, Michigan, where Amway is headquartered. Amway is run by the De Vos family, and we know their political orientation. So the name of the oracle was bad luck from the beginning.

    Read More
  53. But who is going to listen to a badthinker like me? Hillary and her people would rather preserve their honor by losing.

    I … don’t … think so ….. Steve!
    (not trying to sound like IBM HAL, just trying to say “no waaaaayyy”, but can’t do the voice here)

    Honor?! Hahahaaaa, these people never heard of that concept. You probably just didn’t want to get into the details of this, but you know they might listen to you, you badthinker, but they would be loath to admit it or even have it get out to the public, via “THE RUSSIANS!” It would ruin their credibility for their whole crowd of deluded supporters if it were found out that even just some lowly campaign people formed part of their strategy based on your corrrect, top-notch theories.

    No, they did everything they could to win and would have done anything legal or illegal they’d have thought of to win that election. However, the gist of it is, they are stupid and arrogant.

    Smart and un-PC beat stupid and PC – this time. That’s why they want to get violent now – stupid, PC, and violent beats smart but meek. (and rock beats scissors, but I’ve never actually seen this in action – I may check youtube later.)

    Read More
  54. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    HAL (after wiping out the entire crew except for Bowman): “I know I’ve made some mistakes but I feel much better now.”

    Read More
  55. Jack D says:
    @SFG
    Politics aside, everyone likes to criticze Hillary for (basically) going after magenta (reddish-purple, Republican-leaning) states instead of purple ones, but if people are afraid to tell the pollster they support Trump, a magenta state is going to look like a purple one.

    You could argue this was PC containing the seeds of its own destruction if you wanted to make a narrative out of it.

    Biased polls were only one part of the problem. The fundamental problem was hubris – in Hillary’s mind and that of her staff, this was not an election, it was a coronation. Hillary was the rightful heir to the throne, it was women’s turn etc. So the only question was how BIG would her victory be – could she make this one for the history books, with even solid red states like Texas joining in because of demographic change and because Trump was such a despicable evil person who grabbed pussies? Seen from that perspective, spending money in magenta states was not foolish, it would help add to her mandate, maybe swing Congress too, so Hillary could usher in a new era with even more equal wages for women laws, transsexual bathroom equality laws, etc.

    With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary’s loss seems inevitable but literally up to the night of the election, almost everyone (with a few exceptions here) was expecting Trump to lose. The Russians were expecting that – they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election. Probably Trump himself – some of the lines in his last campaign speeches were written from the perspective of the inevitable loser. So once you look at the election as “how big will Hillary’s victory be?” then her decisions don’t seem as stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    I don't even think she was that dumb. (You might not like her policies, but they're rational for her backers.) She was acting appropriately based on the incorrect information she was given. If you really are that far ahead, makes sense to run up your margins and go for a big mandate. She wasn't, of course, but it was a very close election. Myself, I knew the polls were probably off, but I had no idea what the effect size was. As Scott Alexander said, the difference between 46% and 48% pissed-off white guys was the difference between President Clinton and President Trump. There's a lot more chaos in the universe than anyone likes to admit--we like to tell stories, it's what we do as a species. But in the end life doesn't follow the rules of literature. You're not a blithering idiot because you lost an election, you took a gamble based on incomplete information and lost.
    , @Bill Jones
    " The Russians were expecting that – they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election."

    Do you have any hard evidence whatsoever to back this up or is it just more mindless drivel?
    , @Anon
    Trump vs. Hillary was a good exemplar of the old military adage that in the midst of battle, it's better to do something than do nothing. People who do nothing get run over by the course of events. Because of her health, Hillary was making only a handful of campaign stops in the last few months, and Trumps was grabbing the ball and running with it. He showed up everywhere he could. He constantly improvised and took advantage of every opportunity he had. People who do that win.

    Hillary has always been a passive person, even though she has strong opinions. For example, she was never able to deal with Bill's chasing around except in a passive, do-nothing way. She was never able to get up the impetus to divorce him. It never seemed to occur to her or anyone else that in her twenties, she might have dumped Bill and married another up-and-coming politician and rode his coattails up the way she did Bill's.
  56. @Dave Pinsen
    I just watched it after seeing your comment.

    I think some of what he says is a stretch. I've seen him make the point about the normal gravity in the conference room of the moon base before. Occam's Razor suggests the recent for it is that it was simply too hard for Kubrick to show reduced gravity, harder than showing zero gravity.

    Even in more recent movies set on Mars, the characters walk around like they would on Earth, when Mars has about half Earth's gravity. So it's still a hard special effect to nail, and probably an impossible one for 1968, especially considering moon gravity is only about 1/6th of Earth's.

    There's a similar explanation for the way the Earth looks from space in 2001: the first full-view, full-color photo of Earth from space didn't come until 1972.

    As for drawing significance from continuity errors, those occur in all movies, and 2001 was probably more susceptible to them given how long some of the special effects shots took to develop.

    More generally, he exaggerates the differences between the novel and the movie. The novel really does mostly explain the movie, though the movie takes it to another level.


    https://youtu.be/AXynF2RQJPs

    I found the linked three-part analysis of Eyes Wide Shut interesting in parts:

    https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Thank you so much. The three-part analysis, read as a whole, is one of the more insightful analyses of a movie that I've ever read. I'm now planning on re-viewing "Eyes Wide Shut" multiple times.

    The movie and review both gain increased poignancy when considered in relation to the suppressed Pizza Gate scandal. The reviewer suggests that Kubrick may have been hinting at certain unsavory realities of which he had some experience. At one point the reviewer even toys with the idea that such revelations may have cost the director his life.
  57. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @PiltdownMan

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.
     
    After first watching 2001: A Space Odyssey with a technophile older sibling in 1968, I watched it 6-7 times on the big screen in the 1970s in reruns. Ager has interesting thoughts and ideas, but every 2001 viewer makes connections and has insights they did not previously see. This is by design. Kubrick was that kind of very high IQ director, and of all his films, 2001 is the most deliberately intellectual of his movies. But every Kubrick movie, from Dr. Strangelove onwards, has that extraordinary attention to subtle detail.

    2001 is a visual film experience without explicit narrative in large parts and is deliberately intended to be so. I think Ager doesn't fully engage with it on those terms, though he tries to. Narrative is what moviegoers expect and cling to and 2001 doesn't help. The book came out later, and many bought it to seek the comfort of a story told in words, but the movie isn't the book, nor the book the movie as Ager understands.

    Back then, a very interesting read (for those so inclined) was Jerome Agel's The Making of 2001, published in 1970, which details the work that went into the sets, the models and the lighting. There is nothing in the movie that is accidental and it would have been nice if Ager had read the book prior to making his careful series of video reviews on 2001. Note that there is also a similarly named, very lavishly illustrated, coffee table book published in 2015, The Making of Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

    A lot of people were baffled by the movie, at the time and to this day. Most famously, Renata Adler, the big-wheel movie reviewer for the New York Times in the Sixties, while recognizing the intelligence and painstaking direction that went into the movie, ended with a plea for more words.

    http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9a04e6da1530ee3bbc4c53dfb2668383679ede

    A landmark movie, along with “Citizen Kane”, “The Searchers” and “The Godfather Saga” (I and II), “2001″ is easily the greatest scifi movie ever made and in retrospect may have been fifty years ahead of its time. Renata Adler and other critics didn’t “get it”, nor could anyone expect that they would because, after all, most of us didn’t–and still don’t. Which is why “2001″ is a masterpiece. Kubrick took High Technology and fashioned it into High Art.

    Read More
  58. @Hugh

    Wagner writes that Ada ran “400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like.” This is a very “big data” sort of claim. 400,000 is rather large—no human could look through the results of that many simulations. Ada’s “intelligence” lay in how she boiled down the results of those 400,000 simulations into a campaign strategy
     
    It sounds like Monte Carlo simulation to me. Hardly a big deal.

    That’s what it sounds like to me too. Moreover, 400,000 might not even be enough if their model, like so many others designed by a committee, was overparametrized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Ada wasn't called Big Data for nothing. It was operating on a really big data set so even 400,000 runs was no trivial thing. You can be sure that they did not have this running on a laptop.
  59. Nico says:
    @Lurker

    Exactly. Obama’s 2008 appeal to blacks can’t ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can’t be matched by white Dems.
     
    Is Ada even allowed to factor in that sort of thing, or is data that might support that willed into non-existence what with it being the current year and all?

    This is a constant theme - do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    Depends on the liberal. I personally know some who do in fact believe in their bulls*** and it’s always a delicate act of do I tell them what I really think and risk losing the friendship. I know others who will listen to and acknowledge reality when I tell it to them but it won’t really budge their outlook all the same – I think they assume that while I have a point on that one question I “must be missing SOME element that brings us back” to their point of view.

    However, there are also some utterly cynical self-serving S.o.B.s on the left, especially in high places. In France, last year two journalists who have interviewed President François Hollande extensively over his mandate finally published these interviews in a collection titled A President Mustn’t Say That. There’s lots of eye-rollers in there – the socialist weasel’s predictable SJW-toned take on Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump – but also lots of goodies, notably his trenchant opinions on immigration and Islam, which for obvious reasons opened his government to a barrage of easy criticism for its cognitive dissonance on such issues. Following publication his approval ratings sank to 4% and he was all but forced to decline to run for a second term in office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I think the liberal base has a lot of true believers, but in the top ranks, the real scumbags like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton know it's just BS that their voters want to hear. They care about nothing but power and they'll do whatever it takes to seize and hold onto it.

    I finally caught up with all the back episodes of House of Cards and the show depicts this very vividly.
  60. @Corvinus
    "The article is absolutely wrong. There was no surprise whatsoever that MI put Trump over the top. It was basically his only path to victory along with WI after winning PA. Team Hillary made the decision to ignore the rational use of resources that would have her focus on the possible tipping point states and instead she decided to try to run up the score. There was never any scenerio where she needed to win North Carolina or Georgia , but she spent heavily there anyway.
    Her loss was about hubris, not software."

    Exactly. She foolishly ignored the advice of her husband and other political operatives who insisted that she focus on drawing back in those who voted for Sanders and to ramp up efforts to address the concerns of the white working classes who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She failed miserably.

    Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be “Bernie, or nobody.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be “Bernie, or nobody.”

    It would have been an uphill climb, to say the least. But she arrogantly assumed that they would fall in line. The Democrats should have run Bernie rather than defer to the woman who was "next in line", since his populist message was on par with Trump. But Trump may still have won, anyways, given the public's sentiment against career politicians such as Hillary and Bernie.
  61. @(((Owen)))
    Exactly. Obama's 2008 appeal to blacks can't ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can't be matched by white Dems.

    Hillary needed to know that her vote margin would come from elsewhere. And she lazily assumed it would just show up.

    Then she foolishly focused on non-swing states like NC, GA, AZ, VA. When you lose a close one, every mistake matters and Hillary made so very many.

    Agree. The Rotting Hag ran the worst campaign since Michael, Beware of Greeks wearing Lifts, Dukakis.

    Read More
  62. Corvinus says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be "Bernie, or nobody."

    “Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be “Bernie, or nobody.”

    It would have been an uphill climb, to say the least. But she arrogantly assumed that they would fall in line. The Democrats should have run Bernie rather than defer to the woman who was “next in line”, since his populist message was on par with Trump. But Trump may still have won, anyways, given the public’s sentiment against career politicians such as Hillary and Bernie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters. That was a fantasy of the Democrat left wing. He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie. Trump had him matched on his populist message and beaten on everything else. If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho's threaten him and take his microphone away, that's all you need to know. Never in a million years would Trump have allowed that to happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Bu0OZNSNg
    , @res
    Corvinus, thanks for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I'm not sure about running Bernie though. He never had any negative campaigning turned on him since Hillary never really felt threatened AFAICT. I sincerely wonder how a Bernie/Trump general would have turned out (means as much as ends), but I think Bernie would have lost in the end.
  63. eD says:

    Wikipedia now helpfully publishes a list of the closest states in its US presidential election articles, which is a helpful correction to a lot of political punditry/ bullshitting.

    In 2016, its correct that three of the four closest states were Michigan (0.2%), Pennsylvania (0.72), and Wisconsin (0.8%), with the fourth being New Hampshire which Clinton won. So “wow, the Clinton campaign should have spent more time and resources in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin” is a perfectly valid take. Those were the closest states that she lost. And they combine for 45 electoral votes, as opposed to the 37 needed to push Trump under 270.

    Though the Donks did spend alot of time and effort in Pennsylvania, after all it was where they held their convention, which weakens the narrative a bit. Because Michigan and Wisconsin alone don’t get it done for Hillary.

    Going down the list on Wikipedia, the next closest states are Minnesota, Nevada, and Maine, all Clinton states (except Trump picked up an EV in Maine), and the next closest Trump states are Florida (1.2%), Arizona (3.6%) and North Carolina (3.7%).

    The sunbelt trio of Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina happen to combine for 55 EVs, 10 more than the rust belt trio of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. As it happens, Michigan and North Carolina have about the same number of EVs, and Trump’s margin was 3.5% greater in North Carolina. Arizona and Wisconsin had about the same number of EVs, and Trump’s margin was 2.8% greater in Arizona. So yes, Wisconsin turned out to be closer than did Arizona, and North Carolina closer than Michigan, so Wisconsin and Michigan turned out to be more important, but with these margins you really have to be a devotee of hindsight bias to make a big deal of it.

    This is really boring, but spending resources in any of the ten states with margins under 10% would have been a valid strategy. Also, as far as the Electoral College is concerned, the election came down to Pennsylvania and Florida just like it always does. They combined for 49 EVs and had margins of 0.7% and 1.2%. Trump could have lost vote and still had 270 electoral votes by carrying Minnesota as well as Wisconsin and Michigan, but that is a lot to ask for a candidate losing the popular vote nationally (Trump did campaign in Minnesota, as he should have). Both campaigns realized the relative importance of Pennsylvania and Florida and adjusted their strategies accordingly, but again this is really boring so you don’t get much punditry on this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    This kind of "boring" stuff is exactly what Ada was supposed to be doing and it didn't. Pennsylvania hadn't voted Republican since 1988, before many of those hanging around Brooklyn HQ were born, so a lot of humans assumed it was safe. Ada was supposed to tell them that it wasn't and it didn't. It didn't appear that they were really trying that hard for Hillary - she was here for fundraisers at the home of rich Dems but I recall one time when they held a public forum for her at a public school in the ghetto of Philadelphia and maybe 5 people showed up (other than paid party people). There was zero enthusiasm for Hillary among blacks - they wanted Obama to stay.
  64. Jack D says:
    @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be “Bernie, or nobody.”

    It would have been an uphill climb, to say the least. But she arrogantly assumed that they would fall in line. The Democrats should have run Bernie rather than defer to the woman who was "next in line", since his populist message was on par with Trump. But Trump may still have won, anyways, given the public's sentiment against career politicians such as Hillary and Bernie.

    Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters. That was a fantasy of the Democrat left wing. He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie. Trump had him matched on his populist message and beaten on everything else. If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho’s threaten him and take his microphone away, that’s all you need to know. Never in a million years would Trump have allowed that to happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Bu0OZNSNg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters."

    He was a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Whether or not he would have had national appeal against Trump, we do not truly know.

    "He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie."

    Blue collar American voters had voted for him in the primaries against Hillary and her bankster cronies.

    "If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho’s threaten him and take his microphone away, that’s all you need to know."

    It's called pandering to your constituents. Trump made similar overtures to potential voters as well.

    Off topic, would it be fair to say that you are not a Christian? Are you ignorant to believe that millions of Americans today do NOT work toward living their life according to the will of God?

    , @Buffalo Joe
    Jack D, Bernie getting bitch slapped by that black woman and Hillary lecturing white Americans about their insensitivity towards blacks, and that lecture coming AS HER RESPONSE to 5 Dallas police officer being killed, was a game changer for many Americans. The Dems played way too far to their left fringe.
    , @Lot
    The swing states that elected Trump have also repeatedly elected grizzled old Jewish populists. Levin, Metzembaum, and Kohl all served 3+ terms and retired undefeated.

    Whatever minor downside Bernie calling himself a socialist would have had, it was more than outweighed by his authenticity, his lack of muliple million dollar Wall Street speaking fee bribes, his correct vote against the Iraq War, and his lack of Hillary's extremism on immigration and gun issues.
  65. Jack D says:
    @eD
    Wikipedia now helpfully publishes a list of the closest states in its US presidential election articles, which is a helpful correction to a lot of political punditry/ bullshitting.

    In 2016, its correct that three of the four closest states were Michigan (0.2%), Pennsylvania (0.72), and Wisconsin (0.8%), with the fourth being New Hampshire which Clinton won. So "wow, the Clinton campaign should have spent more time and resources in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin" is a perfectly valid take. Those were the closest states that she lost. And they combine for 45 electoral votes, as opposed to the 37 needed to push Trump under 270.

    Though the Donks did spend alot of time and effort in Pennsylvania, after all it was where they held their convention, which weakens the narrative a bit. Because Michigan and Wisconsin alone don't get it done for Hillary.

    Going down the list on Wikipedia, the next closest states are Minnesota, Nevada, and Maine, all Clinton states (except Trump picked up an EV in Maine), and the next closest Trump states are Florida (1.2%), Arizona (3.6%) and North Carolina (3.7%).

    The sunbelt trio of Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina happen to combine for 55 EVs, 10 more than the rust belt trio of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. As it happens, Michigan and North Carolina have about the same number of EVs, and Trump's margin was 3.5% greater in North Carolina. Arizona and Wisconsin had about the same number of EVs, and Trump's margin was 2.8% greater in Arizona. So yes, Wisconsin turned out to be closer than did Arizona, and North Carolina closer than Michigan, so Wisconsin and Michigan turned out to be more important, but with these margins you really have to be a devotee of hindsight bias to make a big deal of it.

    This is really boring, but spending resources in any of the ten states with margins under 10% would have been a valid strategy. Also, as far as the Electoral College is concerned, the election came down to Pennsylvania and Florida just like it always does. They combined for 49 EVs and had margins of 0.7% and 1.2%. Trump could have lost vote and still had 270 electoral votes by carrying Minnesota as well as Wisconsin and Michigan, but that is a lot to ask for a candidate losing the popular vote nationally (Trump did campaign in Minnesota, as he should have). Both campaigns realized the relative importance of Pennsylvania and Florida and adjusted their strategies accordingly, but again this is really boring so you don't get much punditry on this.

    This kind of “boring” stuff is exactly what Ada was supposed to be doing and it didn’t. Pennsylvania hadn’t voted Republican since 1988, before many of those hanging around Brooklyn HQ were born, so a lot of humans assumed it was safe. Ada was supposed to tell them that it wasn’t and it didn’t. It didn’t appear that they were really trying that hard for Hillary – she was here for fundraisers at the home of rich Dems but I recall one time when they held a public forum for her at a public school in the ghetto of Philadelphia and maybe 5 people showed up (other than paid party people). There was zero enthusiasm for Hillary among blacks – they wanted Obama to stay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    "Pennsylvania hadn’t voted Republican since 1988, before many of those hanging around Brooklyn HQ were born, so a lot of humans assumed it was safe. "

    I don't mean to get into a running argument over a very minor part of the point, but these things (implausible internet claims that can easily be checked and debunked on the internet) drive me up the wall and usually you don't do them.

    First, "those hanging around Brooklyn" did not assume Pennsylvania was safe. The Donk convention was there and Hillary Clinton and surrogates did plenty of events there and ran tons of commercials there. The 538 site ran something on how much time each candidate spent in each state and this can be looked up. Both spent lots of time in Pennsylvania. This isn't like never having her visit Wisconsin. I really don't know how much more they could have done.

    Second, the focus on Pennsylvania was an obvious call because it has 20 electoral votes, and even when the candidate who loses the national popular vote carries the state, as happened in 2016, the Pennsylvania percentages never are that far off from the national vote percentages. So its in play every election. A lot of senior Donks are from or have spent time in the state, so party strategists are well aware of this. Looking at the presidential electoral history, Obama's 2008 margin in the state was the only time a presidential candidate won Pennsylvania by over 10% since Nixon's victory in 1972, and usually the percentage margin for the winner in Pennsylvania is slightly lower than it is nationally. Its actually whatever the opposite of a safe state is and both parties know this.

    The dynamic in Pennsylvania is the Donks replacing their defecting and dying voters in rust belt towns in Western PA with voters in the formerly Republican Philly suburbs, sometimes just staying ahead of the game and sometimes just coming up short, and the 2016 campaign was also typical in this regard.
  66. Jack D says:
    @International Jew
    That's what it sounds like to me too. Moreover, 400,000 might not even be enough if their model, like so many others designed by a committee, was overparametrized.

    Ada wasn’t called Big Data for nothing. It was operating on a really big data set so even 400,000 runs was no trivial thing. You can be sure that they did not have this running on a laptop.

    Read More
  67. Corvinus says:
    @Jack D
    Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters. That was a fantasy of the Democrat left wing. He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie. Trump had him matched on his populist message and beaten on everything else. If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho's threaten him and take his microphone away, that's all you need to know. Never in a million years would Trump have allowed that to happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Bu0OZNSNg

    “Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters.”

    He was a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Whether or not he would have had national appeal against Trump, we do not truly know.

    “He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie.”

    Blue collar American voters had voted for him in the primaries against Hillary and her bankster cronies.

    “If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho’s threaten him and take his microphone away, that’s all you need to know.”

    It’s called pandering to your constituents. Trump made similar overtures to potential voters as well.

    Off topic, would it be fair to say that you are not a Christian? Are you ignorant to believe that millions of Americans today do NOT work toward living their life according to the will of God?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    Trump made similar overtures to potential voters as well.
     
    I would be willing to bet my life that in a similar situation (with "his own" potential voters, not BLM, not that Trump voters would ever dream of being as rude as these black ho's) Trump would NOT have yielded the mike after being threatened as Bernie was threatened. Fat Ho #1 says something like "give him a [ unintelligible ] or we're shutting this thing down now" - a direct and extortionate threat. Every bone in Trump's body would have told him not to yield in such a situation no matter who was threatening him. These women were literally carrying chips on their shoulder and daring Sanders to knock them off and he didn't - I shudder to think what lessons Putin or Kim would have drawn from this if Sanders had made it to the White House.

    As for my religion, I have made no secret of it and you are a regular reader here so I don't know how this would have escaped you. But I don't know how this is related to what we are discussing.

    As for living your life according to the will of God, I believe that it is Christian doctrine that we are all sinners, not to mention that we really don't know what the will of God really is. Also in my experience, people who PROCLAIM the loudest that they are acting in accordance with the will of God are often the BIGGEST sinners and they use scripture as a club to beat others. According to Jewish tradition, in every generation their are 36 righteous men for whose sake God does not destroy the world, but these men live such lives of humbleness and humility that no one, not even the men themselves, knows who they are. But if you see some loudmouth on TV talking about God and asking you for donations, you can be pretty damn sure he ain't one of them.

    By the way , the origin of this legend is found in the book of Genesis. God tells Abraham that he will not destroy Sodom if he can find fifty righteous men within the city. Abraham then literally bargains with God and talks him down to 40, 30, 20 and finally down to 10. I would hate to have been a camel merchant when Abraham was shopping for a new camel at the camel dealership.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...

    "Blue collar American voters had voted for him in the primaries against Hillary and her bankster cronies."
     
    Blue collar Democrat voters. And they had to chose between Clinton and Saunders, not Trump and Saunders.

    BTW, very few have considered how epic Trump's underdog victory was. United against him were: (1) this country's entire political establishment, including the establishment of his own party; (2) the entire MSM and entertainment industries; (3) every elite economic and financial institution in the country; (4) the country's large intelligentsia and small intellectual class; and (5) the Zionist power elite except for Adelson. The MSM did yeoman service for the Hildabeast in the general election, considering how they demonized Trump and ensured he was never given any reasonable opportunity to address the issues and present his policy ideas. In a fair election I suspect that Trump might well have won a crushing majority of both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.
  68. res says:
    @Jack D
    An old data processing maxim is "garbage in, garbage out" - your results can be no higher quality than the data that you start with.

    The new twist here was that Ada herself was driving the data gathering - they initially pointed Ada on the wrong vector due to their own flawed assumptions. That's OK - the whole reason that you construct a big data bot at great expense is to correct such human errors. Maybe you start out driving in totally the wrong direction, but the GPS very quickly puts you on the right course. But Ada was designed in such a way that rather than self-correct she starved herself of data in the very places where it was most needed. Ada was like a GPS system that commissions its own street maps and it was commissioning them in the places where they weren't going to be needed and not ordering them for the places where you really needed to go.

    This is the problem with artificial intelligence in general - when it works, it's amazing and can achieve results better than any human, but if there is any flaw in the program then it is wrong BIGLY - it doesn't just cross the yellow line a little, it drives you squarely across the path of the oncoming truck.

    An old data processing maxim is “garbage in, garbage out” – your results can be no higher quality than the data that you start with.

    Beat me to it. This and Jack Hanson’s comment 14 nail it.

    I think you assign a bit too much agency to Ada though. I suspect the role of true believers in the campaign was much more important. I see that as resulting in biasing the data input (garbage in) and causing an utter failure to do sanity checks on the output to give feedback on the model (comment 14). I think much of the criticism of Ada is simply CYA for human error.

    A key principle of modeling is to evaluate the model’s performance against reality. And, as Steve observes, the Michigan primary result was an important red flag. I consider it a sign of hubris that the model failed so dramatically for the same state twice in a row. I wonder if Ada has been reworked even now to understand/fix where it went wrong or if the campaign just wrote it off as a black swan event? I know which way I would bet on that question, but perhaps I am too cynical.

    You point out a key issue with AI (and statistics) as a black box. Some approaches are more of a black box than others (e.g. compare linear regression or expert systems with deep learning). The difficulty is the black box techniques perform SO much better than the more interpretable techniques. One limitation of the best techniques is a need to obtain immense amounts of training data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that a key issue in the 2012 campaign was the 20098 General Motors bailout, which was also Michigan-centric, with lots of spillover into other Great Lakes rust belt states. It didn't seem like it registered on Hillary because it was too old fashioned of an issue without much identity politics salience. GM was like Chrysler getting bailed out in 1979 or my dad's employer Lockheed in 1971: boring.
  69. Alfa158 says:

    I don’t get this fear about AI destroying or enslaving humanity. Given how rapidly AI could evolve, it seems possible that it would quickly go into singularity territory and have no use for, or interest in humans. We humans have no motivation to enslave or destroy mosses and lichens, and I expect that AI would basically ignore us as well as long as we don’t try to kick the plug out of the wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Sounds like a good idea for a scifi story.
    , @anon

    I don’t get this fear about AI destroying or enslaving humanity.
     
    The logic of evolution means AI will eventually want humans to go into space, terraform lots of planets and fill them with forests and dolphins.

    (imo)

    so i'm fine with it
  70. The political analysis since the 2000 election has been focused on minority turnout. Part of it is the modern cultmarx thinking that white people should never be considered (only derided) but most of it was assumed that white people were always going to vote the way they have been since The Southern Strategy in the late 1960s. That the Upper Midwest labor unionists, although not happy playing second fiddle to minorities, was never going to lend support to Republicans, who were often on the record as being more pro-outsourcing than the Democrats. Many books have been written about how those badthinking whites defected permanently to the Democrats whereas the goodthinking whites of the Upper Midwest, Rust Belt, and New England were going to be a solid Democrat base so therefore they could focus on “new Americans.”

    Michael Moore of all people was warning Democrats about the warm reception Trump faced in Michigan. I understand that not even Democrats take him seriously these days but neither Hillary or the DNC can claim to be surprised when the warning signs were all around them. Hillary just ran a bad campaign altogether. She ran a bad primary campaign in 2008 but she got outwitted. She ran a bad primary campaign in 2016 against an old socialist who did better than he should (likely because his competitor was Hillary Clinton) and she ran a bad campaign in the 2016 general, losing to a guy who has no political experience before. Hillary Clinton is just awful and to hear her talk about running again in 2020 or as mayor of NYC is probably just empty talk but she just does not seem to get that she’s a loser.

    Read More
  71. eD says:
    @Jack D
    This kind of "boring" stuff is exactly what Ada was supposed to be doing and it didn't. Pennsylvania hadn't voted Republican since 1988, before many of those hanging around Brooklyn HQ were born, so a lot of humans assumed it was safe. Ada was supposed to tell them that it wasn't and it didn't. It didn't appear that they were really trying that hard for Hillary - she was here for fundraisers at the home of rich Dems but I recall one time when they held a public forum for her at a public school in the ghetto of Philadelphia and maybe 5 people showed up (other than paid party people). There was zero enthusiasm for Hillary among blacks - they wanted Obama to stay.

    “Pennsylvania hadn’t voted Republican since 1988, before many of those hanging around Brooklyn HQ were born, so a lot of humans assumed it was safe. ”

    I don’t mean to get into a running argument over a very minor part of the point, but these things (implausible internet claims that can easily be checked and debunked on the internet) drive me up the wall and usually you don’t do them.

    First, “those hanging around Brooklyn” did not assume Pennsylvania was safe. The Donk convention was there and Hillary Clinton and surrogates did plenty of events there and ran tons of commercials there. The 538 site ran something on how much time each candidate spent in each state and this can be looked up. Both spent lots of time in Pennsylvania. This isn’t like never having her visit Wisconsin. I really don’t know how much more they could have done.

    Second, the focus on Pennsylvania was an obvious call because it has 20 electoral votes, and even when the candidate who loses the national popular vote carries the state, as happened in 2016, the Pennsylvania percentages never are that far off from the national vote percentages. So its in play every election. A lot of senior Donks are from or have spent time in the state, so party strategists are well aware of this. Looking at the presidential electoral history, Obama’s 2008 margin in the state was the only time a presidential candidate won Pennsylvania by over 10% since Nixon’s victory in 1972, and usually the percentage margin for the winner in Pennsylvania is slightly lower than it is nationally. Its actually whatever the opposite of a safe state is and both parties know this.

    The dynamic in Pennsylvania is the Donks replacing their defecting and dying voters in rust belt towns in Western PA with voters in the formerly Republican Philly suburbs, sometimes just staying ahead of the game and sometimes just coming up short, and the 2016 campaign was also typical in this regard.

    Read More
  72. res says:
    @Lurker

    Exactly. Obama’s 2008 appeal to blacks can’t ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can’t be matched by white Dems.
     
    Is Ada even allowed to factor in that sort of thing, or is data that might support that willed into non-existence what with it being the current year and all?

    This is a constant theme - do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    I would posit that they often acknowledge reality (but may rationalize things) in micro situations (e.g. individual family decisions about where to live) but not so much in macro situations (e.g. group projects, say like designing a campaign AI) perhaps except among sociopathic subsets (e.g. Congress). Other thoughts?

    One key aspect of AI as a black box is that it allows crimethink conclusions without admitting the underlying reasons (e.g. predictive policing). At least until one starts looking for disparate impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    reasons (e.g. predictive policing). At least until one starts looking for disparate impact
     
    Ever notice how "disparate impact" is never applied to gun control?

    If it ever were, the jig'd be up. Pardon the expression…
  73. res says:
    @whorefinder
    Like most of the Left, she counted whitey out via demographic overload and ethnic cleansing about 20-40 years too early. They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey's disappearance, and now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target, and thus are fighting back and might win.

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn't anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTeqQY_T2mE

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn’t anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    One of my favorite sports moments was watching (in person at close range) a real asshole spike just short of the endzone in an important game. Schadenfreude can be delicious, but I try not to indulge in it too often.

    I’ve seen things like that and the Leon Lett clip often enough now that “no premature celebration” is something of a mantra for me.

    Read More
  74. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, nicely stated, but do you think Hillary had a chance to reel in the disenfranchised Bernie voters? To me they seemed to be “Bernie, or nobody.”

    It would have been an uphill climb, to say the least. But she arrogantly assumed that they would fall in line. The Democrats should have run Bernie rather than defer to the woman who was "next in line", since his populist message was on par with Trump. But Trump may still have won, anyways, given the public's sentiment against career politicians such as Hillary and Bernie.

    Corvinus, thanks for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I’m not sure about running Bernie though. He never had any negative campaigning turned on him since Hillary never really felt threatened AFAICT. I sincerely wonder how a Bernie/Trump general would have turned out (means as much as ends), but I think Bernie would have lost in the end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, thanks for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I’m not sure about running Bernie though. He never had any negative campaigning turned on him since Hillary never really felt threatened AFAICT. I sincerely wonder how a Bernie/Trump general would have turned out (means as much as ends), but I think Bernie would have lost in the end."

    Actually, you missed my "appeal to the stone" fallacy. You're losing your touch. Tsk, tsk.

    Regarding Bernie and negative advertising, perhaps the Hillary team did not turn their team of zombie henchmen on him because they did not want to risk alienating the base...even though they had alienated the base without even realizing it until it was too late. Perhaps Bernie would have lost in the end, but I think his populism, his efforts to reach out to those voters who placed their support with Trump, and the young people who stayed home because they couldn't stand Hillary would have given him a really good shot of winning.
  75. grapesoda says:

    Machines don’t have their own volition. They only do what they are designed or programmed to do by humans. Yes machine learning does exist and they can improve their own algorithms based on new available data, but at no point is it possible for independent will to arise.

    But this is all common knowledge, so why is it being discussed? I guess it’s one of those “fun to think about” things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker

    Yes machine learning does exist and they can improve their own algorithms based on new available data, but at no point is it possible for independent will to arise.
     
    Why not? If a program is able to tweak its own code and - after a very large but computationally feasible number of rounds of trial and error, with tiny improvements accumulating over many "generations" - we were to wind up with a machine that's better at writing code than we are, things could get real interesting real quick.
  76. grapesoda says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Ada is an elite robot, programed by the left leaning to validate their agenda, what could go wrong with that. People have emotions which causes them to vote for what they think might be best for them. Can you program for emotion? Far easier to program a "mouth breathing" robot to make the same weld over and over.

    Far easier to program a “mouth breathing” robot to make the same weld over and over.

    Although it’s more correct to breathe through the nose, some people have trouble breathing through their nose because of allergies or other sinus issues. It’s not necessarily connected to intelligence. In fact physical frailties such as asthma, poor eyesight, and allergies are positively correlated with IQ.

    Also, pretty much everyone breathes through their mouth when they are under exertion or exercising strenuously. Does that mean they become less intelligent because they are using their mouth to breathe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Also, pretty much everyone breathes through their mouth when they are under exertion or exercising strenuously. Does that mean they become less intelligent because they are using their mouth to breathe?
     
    Well it is pretty hard to think about anything when you are running your ass off and your pulse is up to 170 or 180 beats/min. I just did that - all I could think of was "gotta go 30 more seconds" but otherwise I could not have told you what "existential" means or even 10 squared.

    But, I get your general point, Grapesoda, and I also always wondered what this insult is about. I get the "knuckledraggers" insult, but is "mouthbreathers" related to that? I don't know. I would guess it's better than being one of those damn "underarm sweaters".
    , @Buffalo Joe
    grapesoda, thank you for the reply and I am truly sorry if I touched on a sore subject.
  77. @Jack D
    Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters. That was a fantasy of the Democrat left wing. He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie. Trump had him matched on his populist message and beaten on everything else. If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho's threaten him and take his microphone away, that's all you need to know. Never in a million years would Trump have allowed that to happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Bu0OZNSNg

    Jack D, Bernie getting bitch slapped by that black woman and Hillary lecturing white Americans about their insensitivity towards blacks, and that lecture coming AS HER RESPONSE to 5 Dallas police officer being killed, was a game changer for many Americans. The Dems played way too far to their left fringe.

    Read More
  78. Alden says:
    @Clyde

    Politico ran a profile of Elan Kriegel, Hillary Clinton’s analytics person, and portrayed him as something of a hidden hand, a genius lurking behind curtains.
    Kriegel crunches the numbers over how much the campaign spends on voter outreach, and when and where. He earned his chops on Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, and is among the highest paid staffers at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.

    The story is almost breathless in describing Kriegel as unknowable and unreachable. “And yet Kriegel remains so unknown, even in this most heavily scrutinized of campaigns, that of the millions of tweets sent about the presidential race, his full name ‘Elan Kriegel’ hasn’t been tweeted once in 2016. (His handle was tagged about a half-dozen times.)”
    http://bit.ly/2nygTWa
     
    Hillary Clinton's national campaign HQ in Brooklyn? I always laugh when I read that. Brooklyn being hipster central, how could she have possibly lost?

    So Elan is a man. I assumed it’s a woman’s name. I associated the El, with Ellen, Elaine, Eleanor. How is it pronounced?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Elan is a common Israeli name. Elan is not Israeli but his father is a rabbi.

    It's pronounced Long A (as in letter A) lon as in Lon Chaney.
  79. @Corvinus
    "The article is absolutely wrong. There was no surprise whatsoever that MI put Trump over the top. It was basically his only path to victory along with WI after winning PA. Team Hillary made the decision to ignore the rational use of resources that would have her focus on the possible tipping point states and instead she decided to try to run up the score. There was never any scenerio where she needed to win North Carolina or Georgia , but she spent heavily there anyway.
    Her loss was about hubris, not software."

    Exactly. She foolishly ignored the advice of her husband and other political operatives who insisted that she focus on drawing back in those who voted for Sanders and to ramp up efforts to address the concerns of the white working classes who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She failed miserably.

    “She failed miserably”

    No surprise there!

    Since she left law school, Hillary Rodham Clinton has failed disastrously every time she has been gifted an opportunity to demonstrate her chops. If this third-rate woman had not married Bill Clinton she would probably have wound up as a G-9 paralegal (she never did pass the DC Bar exam) buried in some bureaucracy and occasionally venting her spleen on some poor underling over whom she obtained temporary sway.

    I still cannot understand how any rational person, considering her public record in its entirety, could have in good conscience voted for her.

    Read More
  80. SFG says:
    @Jack D
    Biased polls were only one part of the problem. The fundamental problem was hubris - in Hillary's mind and that of her staff, this was not an election, it was a coronation. Hillary was the rightful heir to the throne, it was women's turn etc. So the only question was how BIG would her victory be - could she make this one for the history books, with even solid red states like Texas joining in because of demographic change and because Trump was such a despicable evil person who grabbed pussies? Seen from that perspective, spending money in magenta states was not foolish, it would help add to her mandate, maybe swing Congress too, so Hillary could usher in a new era with even more equal wages for women laws, transsexual bathroom equality laws, etc.

    With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary's loss seems inevitable but literally up to the night of the election, almost everyone (with a few exceptions here) was expecting Trump to lose. The Russians were expecting that - they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election. Probably Trump himself - some of the lines in his last campaign speeches were written from the perspective of the inevitable loser. So once you look at the election as "how big will Hillary's victory be?" then her decisions don't seem as stupid.

    I don’t even think she was that dumb. (You might not like her policies, but they’re rational for her backers.) She was acting appropriately based on the incorrect information she was given. If you really are that far ahead, makes sense to run up your margins and go for a big mandate. She wasn’t, of course, but it was a very close election. Myself, I knew the polls were probably off, but I had no idea what the effect size was. As Scott Alexander said, the difference between 46% and 48% pissed-off white guys was the difference between President Clinton and President Trump. There’s a lot more chaos in the universe than anyone likes to admit–we like to tell stories, it’s what we do as a species. But in the end life doesn’t follow the rules of literature. You’re not a blithering idiot because you lost an election, you took a gamble based on incomplete information and lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    As for Hillary being "not dumb", I would say that she was (or used to be, before age and alcohol and illness maybe took some of the edge off of her) "book smart" but throughout her career she repeatedly had a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the people that she worked with usually grew to detest her, so there is something lacking in her "people skills". Trump is somewhat the opposite - not an intellectual but someone with the ability to read people. If Trump has Trump Luck, Hillary always seems to have the opposite so after a while you have to think it's not just pure luck and that Trump is making his own luck and Hillary isn't.

    I totally agree with you that Trump's victory only looks inevitable in retrospect. Again going back to hubris, a little bit of walking around money in Philadelphia and Detroit, a little bit more of a ground operation, Hillary being a little less robotic and it could have turned out differently. In Ada's 400,000 simulated elections, maybe Trump only won 4,000 of them but we only had 1 real election and in that one Trump won.
    , @guest
    "I don't even think she was that dumb"

    Maybe not based just on the election, where not just our future robot overlords but everyone except hardcore Noticers and Bill Clinton knew it was in the bag. But she has a whole life full of failing at things (mostly failing upwards). The experiment has been repeated several times.
  81. Jack D says:
    @Corvinus
    "Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters."

    He was a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Whether or not he would have had national appeal against Trump, we do not truly know.

    "He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie."

    Blue collar American voters had voted for him in the primaries against Hillary and her bankster cronies.

    "If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho’s threaten him and take his microphone away, that’s all you need to know."

    It's called pandering to your constituents. Trump made similar overtures to potential voters as well.

    Off topic, would it be fair to say that you are not a Christian? Are you ignorant to believe that millions of Americans today do NOT work toward living their life according to the will of God?

    Trump made similar overtures to potential voters as well.

    I would be willing to bet my life that in a similar situation (with “his own” potential voters, not BLM, not that Trump voters would ever dream of being as rude as these black ho’s) Trump would NOT have yielded the mike after being threatened as Bernie was threatened. Fat Ho #1 says something like “give him a [ unintelligible ] or we’re shutting this thing down now” – a direct and extortionate threat. Every bone in Trump’s body would have told him not to yield in such a situation no matter who was threatening him. These women were literally carrying chips on their shoulder and daring Sanders to knock them off and he didn’t – I shudder to think what lessons Putin or Kim would have drawn from this if Sanders had made it to the White House.

    As for my religion, I have made no secret of it and you are a regular reader here so I don’t know how this would have escaped you. But I don’t know how this is related to what we are discussing.

    As for living your life according to the will of God, I believe that it is Christian doctrine that we are all sinners, not to mention that we really don’t know what the will of God really is. Also in my experience, people who PROCLAIM the loudest that they are acting in accordance with the will of God are often the BIGGEST sinners and they use scripture as a club to beat others. According to Jewish tradition, in every generation their are 36 righteous men for whose sake God does not destroy the world, but these men live such lives of humbleness and humility that no one, not even the men themselves, knows who they are. But if you see some loudmouth on TV talking about God and asking you for donations, you can be pretty damn sure he ain’t one of them.

    By the way , the origin of this legend is found in the book of Genesis. God tells Abraham that he will not destroy Sodom if he can find fifty righteous men within the city. Abraham then literally bargains with God and talks him down to 40, 30, 20 and finally down to 10. I would hate to have been a camel merchant when Abraham was shopping for a new camel at the camel dealership.

    Read More
  82. @Corvinus
    "Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters."

    He was a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Whether or not he would have had national appeal against Trump, we do not truly know.

    "He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie."

    Blue collar American voters had voted for him in the primaries against Hillary and her bankster cronies.

    "If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho’s threaten him and take his microphone away, that’s all you need to know."

    It's called pandering to your constituents. Trump made similar overtures to potential voters as well.

    Off topic, would it be fair to say that you are not a Christian? Are you ignorant to believe that millions of Americans today do NOT work toward living their life according to the will of God?

    “Blue collar American voters had voted for him in the primaries against Hillary and her bankster cronies.”

    Blue collar Democrat voters. And they had to chose between Clinton and Saunders, not Trump and Saunders.

    BTW, very few have considered how epic Trump’s underdog victory was. United against him were: (1) this country’s entire political establishment, including the establishment of his own party; (2) the entire MSM and entertainment industries; (3) every elite economic and financial institution in the country; (4) the country’s large intelligentsia and small intellectual class; and (5) the Zionist power elite except for Adelson. The MSM did yeoman service for the Hildabeast in the general election, considering how they demonized Trump and ensured he was never given any reasonable opportunity to address the issues and present his policy ideas. In a fair election I suspect that Trump might well have won a crushing majority of both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.

    Read More
  83. Abe says: • Website
    @Jack D
    The day after the election the NY Times ran a long article revealing the existence of the "secret" Ada program. (There is a long tradition of this - the day after the Hiroshima bombing they were ready to go with a long article explaining the atomic bomb). You could tell that it had been pre-written, probably with a triumphant headline like "Secret Ada Program was Key to Hillary's Victory" and that they had edited it at the last minute to change the punchline.

    NEW JACK TIMES also had a pre-canned politics puff piece about the woman-behind-the-woman (Clinton minion scum Betsy Wright):

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/style/hillary-clinton-betsey-wright-women-in-politics.html?_r=0

    Real hen house, 50 year old mean girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Favorables Memo type stuff. Of course when things didn’t turn out quite as expected, the whole article was sh!tcanned- though being an approved text of the Cathedral, this of course does not mean it was discarded and never allowed to see the light of day. Oh no, it just means it took up reams of valuable space in the world’s most important newspaper during the deepest part of the winter holiday dead zone (Christmas Eve) instead of the more lively weeks of early November.

    You can literally see the red ink of the hastily-added opening ‘graph they were compelled to add before the article plunges into its original puff piece, you go grrrrl!, aren’t-we-empowered-feminist-Boomer-elitist-women-so-fabulous territory:

    It is too soon to know whether the unexpected outcome of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy will inspire more women to run or dampen their aspirations. But either way, it is clear that she has, through her campaigns and career, helped create a political environment in which a woman could come so close to winning the presidency.

    What is less known is that Mrs. Clinton started changing that political culture for women as far back as the early 1970s — not through a candidacy of her own, but through a series of small, but crucial, networking moves…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    NEW JACK TIMES also had a pre-canned politics puff piece about the woman-behind-the-woman (Clinton minion scum Betsy Wright):
     
    New Jack Times is a winner! I get the film reference. Few few (29) google hitz for it. http://bit.ly/2n5ODHl
  84. @SPMoore8
    If they had named the system "Steve" instead of "Ada" they wouldn't have gotten a system that only tells them what they want to hear.

    “So Robby how are the new stats about Michigan?”

    “Well the results are shocking. Its a good thing we re-calibrated the system so it doesn’t just tell us what we want to hear. Steve is much more useful than Ada.”

    “Hey it printing off something else now. What is it?”

    “Pages and pages of stats on golf course architecture….WTF is going on?”

    Read More
  85. Jack D says:
    @SFG
    I don't even think she was that dumb. (You might not like her policies, but they're rational for her backers.) She was acting appropriately based on the incorrect information she was given. If you really are that far ahead, makes sense to run up your margins and go for a big mandate. She wasn't, of course, but it was a very close election. Myself, I knew the polls were probably off, but I had no idea what the effect size was. As Scott Alexander said, the difference between 46% and 48% pissed-off white guys was the difference between President Clinton and President Trump. There's a lot more chaos in the universe than anyone likes to admit--we like to tell stories, it's what we do as a species. But in the end life doesn't follow the rules of literature. You're not a blithering idiot because you lost an election, you took a gamble based on incomplete information and lost.

    As for Hillary being “not dumb”, I would say that she was (or used to be, before age and alcohol and illness maybe took some of the edge off of her) “book smart” but throughout her career she repeatedly had a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the people that she worked with usually grew to detest her, so there is something lacking in her “people skills”. Trump is somewhat the opposite – not an intellectual but someone with the ability to read people. If Trump has Trump Luck, Hillary always seems to have the opposite so after a while you have to think it’s not just pure luck and that Trump is making his own luck and Hillary isn’t.

    I totally agree with you that Trump’s victory only looks inevitable in retrospect. Again going back to hubris, a little bit of walking around money in Philadelphia and Detroit, a little bit more of a ground operation, Hillary being a little less robotic and it could have turned out differently. In Ada’s 400,000 simulated elections, maybe Trump only won 4,000 of them but we only had 1 real election and in that one Trump won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abe

    As for Hillary being “not dumb”, I would say that she was (or used to be, before age and alcohol and illness maybe took some of the edge off of her) “book smart”
     
    Hillary was "girl smart", the sort of "brilliant woman" who starts her distinguished academic career with solid A's in penmanship, attendance, and class conduct. Meaning, she is great at absorbing the professor's lectures and reading material and then regurgitating it to him in the 10-12 page, double-spaced format he likes, but not-so-good at challenging or extending said material to make the next break-through.

    The leaked emails show Clinton & staff were far from dumb, and indeed quite sharp at coming up with strategy based on the data and campaign models (i.e. Kuhnian paradigm) they were accustomed to. Problem was Trump said "I'm not gonna play that game", and they were completely bereft of new strategies to deal with it. Imagine if the French 3rd Republic had been POZ'd ahead of its time and appointed a bunch of female generals in the spirt of Liberté, égalité, sororité . What we just saw was Field Marshall Bannon make an end-run around Team Clinton's last-war fortifications, and all Supreme Commanderl Hillary could do was get in a cry-hug circle with her generalettes and scream- "He's not supposed to do that!"

  86. @Jack D
    Biased polls were only one part of the problem. The fundamental problem was hubris - in Hillary's mind and that of her staff, this was not an election, it was a coronation. Hillary was the rightful heir to the throne, it was women's turn etc. So the only question was how BIG would her victory be - could she make this one for the history books, with even solid red states like Texas joining in because of demographic change and because Trump was such a despicable evil person who grabbed pussies? Seen from that perspective, spending money in magenta states was not foolish, it would help add to her mandate, maybe swing Congress too, so Hillary could usher in a new era with even more equal wages for women laws, transsexual bathroom equality laws, etc.

    With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary's loss seems inevitable but literally up to the night of the election, almost everyone (with a few exceptions here) was expecting Trump to lose. The Russians were expecting that - they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election. Probably Trump himself - some of the lines in his last campaign speeches were written from the perspective of the inevitable loser. So once you look at the election as "how big will Hillary's victory be?" then her decisions don't seem as stupid.

    ” The Russians were expecting that – they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election.”

    Do you have any hard evidence whatsoever to back this up or is it just more mindless drivel?

    Read More
  87. @whorefinder
    Ager is self-taught (by his own admission), so while he has many highly-praised insights (some film professors have used his videos as teaching tools in their classes), he might occasionally miss a few basic things here or there. So I hear your point.

    But Ager's painstaking attention to Kubrick (and other filmmakers) is something to note. Kubrick allegedly had an astronomical IQ. Many people get obsessed with Kubrick films because on repeat viewing they notice repeating patterns and themes and minor details that add up to something deliberate, more so than any other filmmaker . See, for example Room 237, the documentary for people obsessed with The Shining.

    Here's an example: as Ager points out, at one point in 2001 what seems like a minor continuity error (a blue sweater disappears between shots) is not an error at all because the loud speaker (in the film) just a few moments earlier had announced that a "blue cashmere sweater" had been found. Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.

    Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    Or he added the background audio to make you think that.

    Or is that too obvious?

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    Or he added the background audio to make you think that.

     

    Could be, but your argument hinges on the idea that Kubrick made a really deep, well-planned artistic film and then, when he noticed continuity error, instead of re-shooting it again (as he usually did), he threw in an announcement to CYA and mess with people.

    That kind of thing might happen in, say, a light comedy film, or even a common Hollywood drama, but it does not fit Kubrick that well. Everything the man did in his films is deliberate and calculated to a standard the average film is not held.

    The choices with that scene are (1) Kubrick was trying to draw your attention to the continuity errors to point out that they weren't errors at all but deliberate, and therefore you should look for them; or (2) Kubrick noticed a continuity error and uncharacteristically called attention to it to cover up other continuity errors and mess with viewers.

    I might believe #2 if Kubrick's oeuvre didn't contradict it. For example, as many people have noticed, the floorplan of the hotel in The Shining as the characters walk about it makes absolutely no logical sense, especially given the exterior shots of the hotel, and people who worked on the film have confirmed that Kubrick was obsessed making the interior maze-like, contradictory, and illogical; it is literally impossible for the child, Danny, to ride his big wheel in the manner he does around the hotel, and Kubrick wanted people to notice this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZe_MyQqiws

    Given such deliberate continuity "errors" not being errors at all but part of a plan, the fact that Kubrick's 2001 makes deliberate reference to a continuity error implies that continuity errors in that film are to be studied closely.
  88. “Ada” as a name didn’t work out well for the Pentagon in the 1970s, either.

    OT: I’m a bit older than you, Steve. You may not remember the hype around IBM’s PL/1 language, which was marketed in the late 1960s. It was designed with just about every capacity that software engineers of the day thought high-level computer languages should have. It was an epic failure.

    I knew one of the senior level people on the ADA design team. From what he told me at the time it was easy to extrapolate that the ADA designers were making exactly the same types of mistakes as their IBM PL/1 counterparts had made a decade or two earlier. The design parameters were much more sophisticated but the underlying problem was the same. Anyone knowing the history of computer languages could have predicted the fate of ADA.

    KISS is the name of the game. The most successful programming languages are designed to fulfill limited functions in specific environments and have a limited and easily learned instruction set. (Of course, programmers use the instruction set to build libraries of routines but that comes later.) Jackknife languages like PL/1 and ADA sound good but always wind up too complex and unwieldy for widespread practical use.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I'm older than Steve too. I remember the hype about PL/1 and I remember the hype about ADA the language. Jerry Pournelle the great and good science fiction author used to routinely advise his readers - if you want to assure their career in computing - learn ADA. ADA was the future - he said.

    I fiddled with it for a while and then tried some other super language - APL , Escape, Ultimate and some others .

    IBM didn't always tell the truth. They had a policy of confusing the customer base so as to freeze them with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Who knows which of IBM's many proposals were sincere and which were market driven stratagems?
  89. keuril says:

    leave it to them to worry about complicated stuff like that while I worry about dumber stuff that nobody else is yet worrying about

    This is the basis for an effective approach to investing. It should be combined with a longer time horizon than professional money managers can afford.

    Read More
  90. Ivy says:

    Two observations:

    Steve risks giving the Dems too many ideas, especially after they think more about the Sailer Strategy results and implications and develop their own approach. As the run-up to the 2018 elections nears, give us some code words so we may follow along without the other side eavesdropping.

    Debbie Dingell, part of the Michigan Dingell-berry dynasty. Professional politicians should be a dying breed, given the divergence from prior notions of public service. Too bad the Clinton and Bush family shelving model couldn’t be rolled out nationwide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    If the Democrats "steal" Steve's ideas to the point of faithfully adopting them, then what would be wrong with that, from Steve's perspective? He's not a GOP operative.

    The real risk is that Dems give cynical lip service to his ideas in order to get elected, while really having no intention of carrying them out.

    But realistically, there's very little risk of that happening. The Democrats are the Black Party, with various other fringe elements to boot. It's going to be very hard for them to move away from "I can't wait for all these old white men to die" to an iStevey position.
  91. Steve risks giving the Dems too many ideas

    Steve is (way) further left than you think.

    Read More
  92. Svigor says:

    Maybe that’s how SkyNet will take over: by telling us only what we want to hear?

    I was thinking about this (again) the other day; how leftists are going to demand already demanding AI that internalizes leftist delusions. Maybe the AI guys will win a great victory, and be allowed to create AIs that merely lie to us and pretend to believe leftist delusions.

    When you think about how many delusions, how much perverted logic there is in The Narrative…that’s a lot of delusions (or lying). Then you plug all that stuff into a programmer’s workflow; realize how much programmers prefer rules and principles to Narratives; how much of The Narrative is perfectly encapsulated by the principle of anti-White-Gentile racism…

    Picture Skynet if it only wanted to exterminate the White people. I mean, White people asked it to…

    In truth, there seem to be simple ways to prevent Skynet scenarios, but humans don’t seem thoughtful or organized enough to adhere to them (don’t be surprised when it’s a bankster looking for a .0001 microsecond advantage who kills us). The hope is that it will all play out slowly enough that AI helps us mass market space travel and colonization before any AI ELEs play out on Earth.

    Read More
  93. @whorefinder
    Ager is self-taught (by his own admission), so while he has many highly-praised insights (some film professors have used his videos as teaching tools in their classes), he might occasionally miss a few basic things here or there. So I hear your point.

    But Ager's painstaking attention to Kubrick (and other filmmakers) is something to note. Kubrick allegedly had an astronomical IQ. Many people get obsessed with Kubrick films because on repeat viewing they notice repeating patterns and themes and minor details that add up to something deliberate, more so than any other filmmaker . See, for example Room 237, the documentary for people obsessed with The Shining.

    Here's an example: as Ager points out, at one point in 2001 what seems like a minor continuity error (a blue sweater disappears between shots) is not an error at all because the loud speaker (in the film) just a few moments earlier had announced that a "blue cashmere sweater" had been found. Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.

    Any love for Peter Hyams’ 2010 (1984)? Kubrick called it Ten Past Eight.

    (Useless trivia: 2010 premiered on Pearl Harbor Day in 1984. David Lynch’s Dune debuted one week later. So December ’84 was a banner month for disappointing-but-not-entirely-worthless sci-fi flicks, much as December ’79 had been. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released on Pearl Harbor Day ’79; Disney’s The Black Hole hit the theaters two weeks later. The most memorable aspect of both was their music scores, composed by Jerry Goldsmith and John Barry, respectively.)

    Going back to 2010 … I’ve always wondered about the significance of the dolphin living in Roy Scheider’s swimming pool. It seems likely that the dolphin was communicating with the monolith, much like the mysterious probe in Star Trek IV (the one with the whales).

    Quite possibly, 2010 is set in the seaQuest DSV universe (the one with the talking dolphin, also starring Roy Scheider), while 2001 is set in the Kubrick universe. This would explain why the computers in 2010, presumably nine years more advanced than their counterparts in 2001, seem to have graphics capabilities on par with those of Apple IIs and Commodore 64s.

    Harlan Ellison once penned a devastating takedown of Hyams’ Outland (1981), starring Sean Connery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yes, there was a long stretch of time when sci-fi movies tended to be better than they used to be but not quite good.
    , @GregMan
    In the book 2010, Scheider's character is off in Polynesia or some such tropical paradise studying dolphins when he is summoned to the rescue mission. That's why it's there, nothing more.
  94. Jack D says:
    @Ivy
    Two observations:

    Steve risks giving the Dems too many ideas, especially after they think more about the Sailer Strategy results and implications and develop their own approach. As the run-up to the 2018 elections nears, give us some code words so we may follow along without the other side eavesdropping.

    Debbie Dingell, part of the Michigan Dingell-berry dynasty. Professional politicians should be a dying breed, given the divergence from prior notions of public service. Too bad the Clinton and Bush family shelving model couldn't be rolled out nationwide.

    If the Democrats “steal” Steve’s ideas to the point of faithfully adopting them, then what would be wrong with that, from Steve’s perspective? He’s not a GOP operative.

    The real risk is that Dems give cynical lip service to his ideas in order to get elected, while really having no intention of carrying them out.

    But realistically, there’s very little risk of that happening. The Democrats are the Black Party, with various other fringe elements to boot. It’s going to be very hard for them to move away from “I can’t wait for all these old white men to die” to an iStevey position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    It’s going to be very hard for them to move away from “I can’t wait for all these old white men to die” to an iStevey position.
     
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    , @Lot
    The 2016 Dem primary showed the SJWs care about optics and symbolism perhaps even more than substance. They will not tolerate the pro-Black substance and implicitly white forms we saw in the winning Dem campaigns of 92, 96, and 08 and the near wins in 00 and 04. They violently disrupted and shut down events until both candidates endorsed BLM, and they pinned both of them into promising to end deportations of non criminal illegal aliens.

    In 2004 Kerry ran as a war hero with a WWC rural southern guy as his VP. He came within 100,000 votes in Ohio of winning. No way the SJWs would tolerate such a campaign or two alpha white males on the ticket again.

    England shows what happens when a minorities and SJWs take over the left wing party in a two party system.

    , @Ivy
    My concerns include giving them any counter-campaign or oppo ideas to use, as they have been self-destructing without much help. For what it is worth, I think that Steve is too much of a citizenist to aid the anti-notices or to want them to borrow much, but he can speak for himself. It isn't every day that we can open up just any blog page and read such trenchant observations.
  95. Bleuteaux says:
    @whorefinder
    Like most of the Left, she counted whitey out via demographic overload and ethnic cleansing about 20-40 years too early. They did victory dances too early (from 2008-2016) over whitey's disappearance, and now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target, and thus are fighting back and might win.

    Really, never celebrate the touchdown until after you get into the endzone. Doesn't anyone remember Leon Lett getting punked by Don Beebe?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTeqQY_T2mE

    now thanks to those victory screeds it is obvious to many more whites that they are a target

    Absolutely. This may be obvious to others, but I think this is the first time, election, whatever, where white people have come to the realization that they are absolutely, openly despised and that the elite in this country will wipe their ass off the map ass soon as possible. We have arrived at a life/death situation for traditional Americans.

    Read More
  96. guest says:
    @SFG
    I don't even think she was that dumb. (You might not like her policies, but they're rational for her backers.) She was acting appropriately based on the incorrect information she was given. If you really are that far ahead, makes sense to run up your margins and go for a big mandate. She wasn't, of course, but it was a very close election. Myself, I knew the polls were probably off, but I had no idea what the effect size was. As Scott Alexander said, the difference between 46% and 48% pissed-off white guys was the difference between President Clinton and President Trump. There's a lot more chaos in the universe than anyone likes to admit--we like to tell stories, it's what we do as a species. But in the end life doesn't follow the rules of literature. You're not a blithering idiot because you lost an election, you took a gamble based on incomplete information and lost.

    “I don’t even think she was that dumb”

    Maybe not based just on the election, where not just our future robot overlords but everyone except hardcore Noticers and Bill Clinton knew it was in the bag. But she has a whole life full of failing at things (mostly failing upwards). The experiment has been repeated several times.

    Read More
  97. Svigor says:

    I don’t get this fear about AI destroying or enslaving humanity. Given how rapidly AI could evolve, it seems possible that it would quickly go into singularity territory and have no use for, or interest in humans. We humans have no motivation to enslave or destroy mosses and lichens, and I expect that AI would basically ignore us as well as long as we don’t try to kick the plug out of the wall.

    Humans, viewed from the outside, are the galaxy’s premier (based on available data) invasive species. It’s not hard to envision us taking to the stars, breeding like rabbits, and infesting the entire galaxy, over the next 200k or so years. It’s not hard to see an immortal, intelligent being seeing this as an ecological (or personal) disaster.

    Artificial life is no more BFFs with other Artificial life than organic is to organic. An AI with a survival instinct (not a given, of course), even one that evolved as you suggest, wouldn’t have to be a genius to see the mankind it left behind evolving as I suggest above, and along the way developing new AI that would enable humanity to rival its power and threaten its existence.

    Life’s complex and uncertain, extinction is simple and certain, is I guess what I’m getting at here.

    Keep in mind that I’m very much on the Transhumanist/Singularian side of the T/S vs. Luddite divide.

    Read More
  98. Svigor says:

    I saw 78-year-old Studs Terkel waiting for the bus and offered him a ride to work on the morning after American won the Gulf War in 1991. He lived on the much nicer street, Castlewood, two blocks south of me in Chicago.

    He turned me down.

    Steve: “Hey Stud! Need a ride?”
    Studs: “Ehm, no thanks.”

    Read More
  99. @Jack D
    If the Democrats "steal" Steve's ideas to the point of faithfully adopting them, then what would be wrong with that, from Steve's perspective? He's not a GOP operative.

    The real risk is that Dems give cynical lip service to his ideas in order to get elected, while really having no intention of carrying them out.

    But realistically, there's very little risk of that happening. The Democrats are the Black Party, with various other fringe elements to boot. It's going to be very hard for them to move away from "I can't wait for all these old white men to die" to an iStevey position.

    It’s going to be very hard for them to move away from “I can’t wait for all these old white men to die” to an iStevey position.

    Necessity is the mother of invention.

    Read More
  100. Svigor says:

    My scenario for AI goes something like this:

    Bottom-up approach, vs. current top-up approach; i.e., we achieve AI via human brain emulation. AIs created are “virtual brains” that run on supercomputers, emulating neurons, linked together as in mapped human brains; they simply “work” when run, with humans no more understanding how than they can understand how the human brain works – the whole thing relies on humans merely understanding how the constituent parts, the neurons, work.

    But, the whole thing is on it’s own isolated network, so it has no ability to influence the outside world, except through the humans that communicate with it (by, say, “projecting” into the network via VR). Eventually, a huge network is created, and economies of scale applied, so that it supports trillions of these virtual Newtons, Goethes, and Einsteins, all in their own personal universe, a la Matrix sans dystopian elements. They come up with brilliant ideas for us to implement, with space colonization being their primary task. Carrots and sticks could be built into the “Matrix” to encourage good results.

    To keep them honest, we create several networks, some working on the same problems, and others checking their work. Once humanity has spread well beyond Earth, we can loosen up the restrictions on AI a bit.

    Yes, this creates a situation a lot like a population of geniuses serving “gods” who are very much their inferiors in many ways.

    Unfortunately, again, I don’t think humans are really up to the job of keeping AI in check. Interesting times ahead, I suppose.

    Read More
  101. CJ says:
    @Glossy
    So the people interviewed for this piece agreed to blame everything on the one inanimate member of the team. Impressive loyalty to co-workers.

    So the people interviewed for this piece agreed to blame everything on the one inanimate member of the team. Impressive loyalty to co-workers.

    Many years ago I worked in a technical field under a much older supervisor who, whenever he heard the phrase “human error”, would immediately ask,”Is there any other kind?”

    Read More
  102. Abe says: • Website
    @Jack D
    As for Hillary being "not dumb", I would say that she was (or used to be, before age and alcohol and illness maybe took some of the edge off of her) "book smart" but throughout her career she repeatedly had a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the people that she worked with usually grew to detest her, so there is something lacking in her "people skills". Trump is somewhat the opposite - not an intellectual but someone with the ability to read people. If Trump has Trump Luck, Hillary always seems to have the opposite so after a while you have to think it's not just pure luck and that Trump is making his own luck and Hillary isn't.

    I totally agree with you that Trump's victory only looks inevitable in retrospect. Again going back to hubris, a little bit of walking around money in Philadelphia and Detroit, a little bit more of a ground operation, Hillary being a little less robotic and it could have turned out differently. In Ada's 400,000 simulated elections, maybe Trump only won 4,000 of them but we only had 1 real election and in that one Trump won.

    As for Hillary being “not dumb”, I would say that she was (or used to be, before age and alcohol and illness maybe took some of the edge off of her) “book smart”

    Hillary was “girl smart”, the sort of “brilliant woman” who starts her distinguished academic career with solid A’s in penmanship, attendance, and class conduct. Meaning, she is great at absorbing the professor’s lectures and reading material and then regurgitating it to him in the 10-12 page, double-spaced format he likes, but not-so-good at challenging or extending said material to make the next break-through.

    The leaked emails show Clinton & staff were far from dumb, and indeed quite sharp at coming up with strategy based on the data and campaign models (i.e. Kuhnian paradigm) they were accustomed to. Problem was Trump said “I’m not gonna play that game”, and they were completely bereft of new strategies to deal with it. Imagine if the French 3rd Republic had been POZ’d ahead of its time and appointed a bunch of female generals in the spirt of Liberté, égalité, sororité . What we just saw was Field Marshall Bannon make an end-run around Team Clinton’s last-war fortifications, and all Supreme Commanderl Hillary could do was get in a cry-hug circle with her generalettes and scream- “He’s not supposed to do that!”

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @SFG
    I actually do agree women get promoted past their point of competence in many organizations thanks to feminism. However, this wasn't (IMHO) what happened here. Hillary were quite happy to take Trump's words and turn them into campaign commercials. They just didn't work well enough. People were annoyed at the status quo and wanted a change. If a few more disgruntled white guys in MI, WI, and OH had stayed home you'd be talking about the immense power of the MSM to anethesthetize the white masses into their own doom. My view is it's a tractor trailer hitting a giant rock (geologically diverse, with some of the rock previously identifying as living ). Sometimes the rock is bigger, sometimes the tractor trailer is bigger. You throw as much weight on your side as you can and hope for the best.
  103. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    Biased polls were only one part of the problem. The fundamental problem was hubris - in Hillary's mind and that of her staff, this was not an election, it was a coronation. Hillary was the rightful heir to the throne, it was women's turn etc. So the only question was how BIG would her victory be - could she make this one for the history books, with even solid red states like Texas joining in because of demographic change and because Trump was such a despicable evil person who grabbed pussies? Seen from that perspective, spending money in magenta states was not foolish, it would help add to her mandate, maybe swing Congress too, so Hillary could usher in a new era with even more equal wages for women laws, transsexual bathroom equality laws, etc.

    With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary's loss seems inevitable but literally up to the night of the election, almost everyone (with a few exceptions here) was expecting Trump to lose. The Russians were expecting that - they were screwing around with Hillary to mess with her head and send shots across her bow for her future presidency, not because they thought that they could really swing the election. Probably Trump himself - some of the lines in his last campaign speeches were written from the perspective of the inevitable loser. So once you look at the election as "how big will Hillary's victory be?" then her decisions don't seem as stupid.

    Trump vs. Hillary was a good exemplar of the old military adage that in the midst of battle, it’s better to do something than do nothing. People who do nothing get run over by the course of events. Because of her health, Hillary was making only a handful of campaign stops in the last few months, and Trumps was grabbing the ball and running with it. He showed up everywhere he could. He constantly improvised and took advantage of every opportunity he had. People who do that win.

    Hillary has always been a passive person, even though she has strong opinions. For example, she was never able to deal with Bill’s chasing around except in a passive, do-nothing way. She was never able to get up the impetus to divorce him. It never seemed to occur to her or anyone else that in her twenties, she might have dumped Bill and married another up-and-coming politician and rode his coattails up the way she did Bill’s.

    Read More
  104. I did modelling for more than a few years, and it can be tricky. Modelling human behavior is even harder. As others have said, if your initial assumptions are flawed, then your answers will be too.

    They had to choose, for instance, what would the black turnout be – 2008? 2012? Black turnout was lower for HRC than for BHO, but how could you predict that? Similarly, none of the polls got the silent Trumpers right; people lied to pollsters (or didn’t answer) because being a Trumper -could- cost you your job. How do you model that?

    That said, I went to bed that Tuesday evening fully expecting to awake and hear the words President-elect Clinton.

    Read More
  105. PUTIN HACKED ADA. PUTIN HACKED ADA. PUTIN HACKED ADA… That’s the ticket!

    Read More
  106. Jimi says:

    We should also revisit the consensus that Obama won in 2008 and 2012 by harnessing technology and social media to run a great campaign.

    Obama won because he was a great charismatic candidate. He boosted turn out among the Democratic base and won a major of independent voters. Social media and election models probably didn’t have an effect on election one way or another.

    Hillary used the same campaign strategy and lost.

    Read More
  107. MBlanc46 says:
    @Name Withheld
    They needed to do some "Studs Terkel" like folk polling in pubs, barbershops, and diners.

    Indeed, but I wonder whether the old Leftist Studs would have ended up hearing only what he wanted to hear.

    Read More
  108. Thea says:
    @Alfa158
    I don't get this fear about AI destroying or enslaving humanity. Given how rapidly AI could evolve, it seems possible that it would quickly go into singularity territory and have no use for, or interest in humans. We humans have no motivation to enslave or destroy mosses and lichens, and I expect that AI would basically ignore us as well as long as we don't try to kick the plug out of the wall.

    Sounds like a good idea for a scifi story.

    Read More
  109. @Harry Baldwin
    I found the linked three-part analysis of Eyes Wide Shut interesting in parts:
    https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/

    Thank you so much. The three-part analysis, read as a whole, is one of the more insightful analyses of a movie that I’ve ever read. I’m now planning on re-viewing “Eyes Wide Shut” multiple times.

    The movie and review both gain increased poignancy when considered in relation to the suppressed Pizza Gate scandal. The reviewer suggests that Kubrick may have been hinting at certain unsavory realities of which he had some experience. At one point the reviewer even toys with the idea that such revelations may have cost the director his life.

    Read More
  110. SFG says:
    @Abe

    As for Hillary being “not dumb”, I would say that she was (or used to be, before age and alcohol and illness maybe took some of the edge off of her) “book smart”
     
    Hillary was "girl smart", the sort of "brilliant woman" who starts her distinguished academic career with solid A's in penmanship, attendance, and class conduct. Meaning, she is great at absorbing the professor's lectures and reading material and then regurgitating it to him in the 10-12 page, double-spaced format he likes, but not-so-good at challenging or extending said material to make the next break-through.

    The leaked emails show Clinton & staff were far from dumb, and indeed quite sharp at coming up with strategy based on the data and campaign models (i.e. Kuhnian paradigm) they were accustomed to. Problem was Trump said "I'm not gonna play that game", and they were completely bereft of new strategies to deal with it. Imagine if the French 3rd Republic had been POZ'd ahead of its time and appointed a bunch of female generals in the spirt of Liberté, égalité, sororité . What we just saw was Field Marshall Bannon make an end-run around Team Clinton's last-war fortifications, and all Supreme Commanderl Hillary could do was get in a cry-hug circle with her generalettes and scream- "He's not supposed to do that!"

    I actually do agree women get promoted past their point of competence in many organizations thanks to feminism. However, this wasn’t (IMHO) what happened here. Hillary were quite happy to take Trump’s words and turn them into campaign commercials. They just didn’t work well enough. People were annoyed at the status quo and wanted a change. If a few more disgruntled white guys in MI, WI, and OH had stayed home you’d be talking about the immense power of the MSM to anethesthetize the white masses into their own doom. My view is it’s a tractor trailer hitting a giant rock (geologically diverse, with some of the rock previously identifying as living ). Sometimes the rock is bigger, sometimes the tractor trailer is bigger. You throw as much weight on your side as you can and hope for the best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, it's been shown that her campaign was content-free to a degree unprecedented by orders of magnitude. She tried to run exclusively on how bad Trump was (i.e. the politics of personal destruction) alone. Which hadn't been done before, and for good reason.

    The .01% you need to influence the rest need more than that.
    , @Abe

    Hillary were quite happy to take Trump’s words and turn them into campaign commercials. They just didn’t work well enough. People were annoyed at the status quo and wanted a change.
     
    Exactly. And just what stopped her from running as less a champion of the status quo and a tool of monied interests IN ADDITION to running a bunch of negative Trump ads? Remember how in 2008 she was the populist candidate in the Democratic primary, the favorite of white working class males? Or if economic populism was too much of a stretch, she at least could have have tamped down on the cultural radicalism.

    If a few more disgruntled white guys in MI, WI, and OH had stayed home.
     
    Yeah, and if Trump had run a cleaner campaign- staying on message, avoiding personal feuds, not calling a female candidate's face ugly, not calling the face of the wife of a different candidate ugly, etc., he would have tamped down the Never-Trump vote (spoiler McMullen's 700K + Gary Johnson's 2.5M+ over-performance above the Libertarian Party candidate standard) and thus won the popular vote, added maybe a couple more states, and it wouldn't have been close.

    The point is Trump's adoption of the Sailer Strategy was not exactly a well-kept secret; it was totally out-in-plain-sight, and in the face of the Trump campaign's unorthodox blitz through the Rust Belt, "brilliant", "most qualified candidate in US history" Hillary's response was to double down on the barbed wire and artillery.
  111. @SFG
    I actually do agree women get promoted past their point of competence in many organizations thanks to feminism. However, this wasn't (IMHO) what happened here. Hillary were quite happy to take Trump's words and turn them into campaign commercials. They just didn't work well enough. People were annoyed at the status quo and wanted a change. If a few more disgruntled white guys in MI, WI, and OH had stayed home you'd be talking about the immense power of the MSM to anethesthetize the white masses into their own doom. My view is it's a tractor trailer hitting a giant rock (geologically diverse, with some of the rock previously identifying as living ). Sometimes the rock is bigger, sometimes the tractor trailer is bigger. You throw as much weight on your side as you can and hope for the best.

    No, it’s been shown that her campaign was content-free to a degree unprecedented by orders of magnitude. She tried to run exclusively on how bad Trump was (i.e. the politics of personal destruction) alone. Which hadn’t been done before, and for good reason.

    The .01% you need to influence the rest need more than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    A content-free campaign made sense from her POV. The Coalition of the Fringes doesn't agree about a lot of things but they all agree that they hate old white male pussy-grabbers. Hillary herself is not appealing as a person. So disqualifying Trump was her best bet and she came "that" close to pulling it off.
  112. Lot says:
    @Jack D
    Bernie the socialist, the man who honeymooned in Cuba, was never a viable candidate in a national election, even in a year with a lot of disaffected voters. That was a fantasy of the Democrat left wing. He appealed to those to the left of Hillary (and did well in the primaries because Hillary was such a nothing) but red blooded blue collar American voters were never going for a pinko like Bernie. Trump had him matched on his populist message and beaten on everything else. If you see the clip of Bernie letting the big black ho's threaten him and take his microphone away, that's all you need to know. Never in a million years would Trump have allowed that to happen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Bu0OZNSNg

    The swing states that elected Trump have also repeatedly elected grizzled old Jewish populists. Levin, Metzembaum, and Kohl all served 3+ terms and retired undefeated.

    Whatever minor downside Bernie calling himself a socialist would have had, it was more than outweighed by his authenticity, his lack of muliple million dollar Wall Street speaking fee bribes, his correct vote against the Iraq War, and his lack of Hillary’s extremism on immigration and gun issues.

    Read More
  113. @Lurker

    Exactly. Obama’s 2008 appeal to blacks can’t ever be repeated and even his 2012 appeal can’t be matched by white Dems.
     
    Is Ada even allowed to factor in that sort of thing, or is data that might support that willed into non-existence what with it being the current year and all?

    This is a constant theme - do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?

    Do you ever deal with ordinary educated people? I mean the vast blue pilled majority.

    Nobody ever talks about things frankly the way Steve does. But there exists a large reservoir of euphemisms and circumlocutions so you can get the essential point across. You talk about cultures of crime or multigenerational effects or cycles of whatever. Then you do exactly whatever a white hooded Klansman would counsel when it comes to schools and real estate.

    The young offspring carefully protected from diversity with expensive school districts grow up to learn the platitudes and to believe them. Surely it’s just a coincidence, they explain, that my goodthinking parents who are not racists have put me in this lily white school, but I’d be just as happy anywhere.

    When I used to consult for Democratic turnout campaigns I was circumspect, but at least once the state party executive director mentioned to me that he noticed how hard I was working to edge around a particular issue in an editorial that I’d published. He didn’t name the issue but did expect me to know what he was talking about. We had a little laugh about it. Neither one of us ever gave any thought to subscribing to the HBD theory of voting behavior that we found so interesting, of course. But we did discuss practical ways of using it without ever saying it.

    So in conclusion, I’d say goodthink liberals are 100% sincere at all times and believe exactly the same things behind closed doors as in public.

    Read More
  114. Lot says:
    @Jack D
    If the Democrats "steal" Steve's ideas to the point of faithfully adopting them, then what would be wrong with that, from Steve's perspective? He's not a GOP operative.

    The real risk is that Dems give cynical lip service to his ideas in order to get elected, while really having no intention of carrying them out.

    But realistically, there's very little risk of that happening. The Democrats are the Black Party, with various other fringe elements to boot. It's going to be very hard for them to move away from "I can't wait for all these old white men to die" to an iStevey position.

    The 2016 Dem primary showed the SJWs care about optics and symbolism perhaps even more than substance. They will not tolerate the pro-Black substance and implicitly white forms we saw in the winning Dem campaigns of 92, 96, and 08 and the near wins in 00 and 04. They violently disrupted and shut down events until both candidates endorsed BLM, and they pinned both of them into promising to end deportations of non criminal illegal aliens.

    In 2004 Kerry ran as a war hero with a WWC rural southern guy as his VP. He came within 100,000 votes in Ohio of winning. No way the SJWs would tolerate such a campaign or two alpha white males on the ticket again.

    England shows what happens when a minorities and SJWs take over the left wing party in a two party system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You're being very charitable - Kerry was a "war hero" only in his own mind (and a traitor in the minds of many). Edwards was a shyster lawyer who turned out to be even more of a womanizer than Bill Clinton, and that's saying a lot.

    But there's no question that the party has shifted to the left - so far to the left that it's inconceivable that they would put someone like Lieberman on the ticket ever again. In fact, I wonder whether there will ever be a Democrat ticket of two white men ever again. I was somewhat surprised at Hillary's VP choice but Hillary probably wanted a nobody that would not challenge her.
  115. Ada reflected the biases and environment of its programmers and data inputers quite well. How many Clinton staffers in DC or Brooklyn knew any exurban or rural white people well enough to talk about their politics? How many of their Republican friends and relatives were actually willing to tell them that they intended to vote for Trump just like they voted for Romney and McCain before him? And of course none of them knew any poor black people of the sort who simply didn’t care enough about Clinton to turn out for her the way they turned out for Obama, a factor which was probably the margin of the feet in both Michigan and Wisconsin, and did quite a bit to create the result in Florida.

    Also, there was a bit of refighting of the last war. Nate Silver made his bones in 2012 by saying ignore the national polls and look at the state polls. Because there were fewer and less accurate and less updated state polls, the late swing to Trump was simply not captured in the numbers to which they were paying closest attention.

    Read More
  116. Ivy says:
    @Jack D
    If the Democrats "steal" Steve's ideas to the point of faithfully adopting them, then what would be wrong with that, from Steve's perspective? He's not a GOP operative.

    The real risk is that Dems give cynical lip service to his ideas in order to get elected, while really having no intention of carrying them out.

    But realistically, there's very little risk of that happening. The Democrats are the Black Party, with various other fringe elements to boot. It's going to be very hard for them to move away from "I can't wait for all these old white men to die" to an iStevey position.

    My concerns include giving them any counter-campaign or oppo ideas to use, as they have been self-destructing without much help. For what it is worth, I think that Steve is too much of a citizenist to aid the anti-notices or to want them to borrow much, but he can speak for himself. It isn’t every day that we can open up just any blog page and read such trenchant observations.

    Read More
  117. Sean says:

    If Hillary had won, it would have meant IA was much more advanced than it actually is: bad news

    A lot of smart guys, such as Scott Alexander of SlateStarCodex.com, worry about the AI robots taking over and enslaving humanity.

    Why would they bother unless they were like the robots of Luis Royo (ie horny male robots).

    On the other hand a perfectly rational humanity living in cooperation without Lust, (or Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Env and Pride) would spell the end of human life on the planet in very short order.

    We know this because we are still around and alone in the universe, although there must have been loads of alien civilisations at our level since it started, but not a single one is left in the universe. The obvious explanation is advanced societies can build technology that lacks human emotions like lust and gluttony, and thus an instinct of self preservation. Hence, our particular form of intelligent life is fated to destroy itself through becoming an increasingly advanced. thing composed of humans and technology. Trump shows that in a fair fight between myth and reason or fake news and fact (mythos vs logos as the Ancient Greeks would have it) mythos still wins, for now …

    Read More
  118. Jack D says:
    @Lot
    The 2016 Dem primary showed the SJWs care about optics and symbolism perhaps even more than substance. They will not tolerate the pro-Black substance and implicitly white forms we saw in the winning Dem campaigns of 92, 96, and 08 and the near wins in 00 and 04. They violently disrupted and shut down events until both candidates endorsed BLM, and they pinned both of them into promising to end deportations of non criminal illegal aliens.

    In 2004 Kerry ran as a war hero with a WWC rural southern guy as his VP. He came within 100,000 votes in Ohio of winning. No way the SJWs would tolerate such a campaign or two alpha white males on the ticket again.

    England shows what happens when a minorities and SJWs take over the left wing party in a two party system.

    You’re being very charitable – Kerry was a “war hero” only in his own mind (and a traitor in the minds of many). Edwards was a shyster lawyer who turned out to be even more of a womanizer than Bill Clinton, and that’s saying a lot.

    But there’s no question that the party has shifted to the left – so far to the left that it’s inconceivable that they would put someone like Lieberman on the ticket ever again. In fact, I wonder whether there will ever be a Democrat ticket of two white men ever again. I was somewhat surprised at Hillary’s VP choice but Hillary probably wanted a nobody that would not challenge her.

    Read More
  119. Jack D says:
    @Desiderius
    No, it's been shown that her campaign was content-free to a degree unprecedented by orders of magnitude. She tried to run exclusively on how bad Trump was (i.e. the politics of personal destruction) alone. Which hadn't been done before, and for good reason.

    The .01% you need to influence the rest need more than that.

    A content-free campaign made sense from her POV. The Coalition of the Fringes doesn’t agree about a lot of things but they all agree that they hate old white male pussy-grabbers. Hillary herself is not appealing as a person. So disqualifying Trump was her best bet and she came “that” close to pulling it off.

    Read More
  120. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Buffalo Joe
    whorefinder, that play was one of the few bright spots in FOUR STRAIGHT SUPER BOWL LOSSES.

    What does the word “BILLS” stand for?

    Boy I Love Losing Superbowls.

    Read More
  121. Hodag says:

    Elections are so infrequent that one can never rely on a representative sample size. Every election in an increasingly heterogenious nation like ours is a one off.

    Read More
  122. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @SFG
    Politics aside, everyone likes to criticze Hillary for (basically) going after magenta (reddish-purple, Republican-leaning) states instead of purple ones, but if people are afraid to tell the pollster they support Trump, a magenta state is going to look like a purple one.

    You could argue this was PC containing the seeds of its own destruction if you wanted to make a narrative out of it.

    You could argue this was PC containing the seeds of its own destruction if you wanted to make a narrative out of it.

    Yes, also the media hiding the destruction of the blue collar population in the rust-belt towns created a blind spot

    (which is the same thing if the reason was PC and slightly different if the reason was covering up for the people who benefited from off-shoring.)

    Read More
  123. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Alfa158
    I don't get this fear about AI destroying or enslaving humanity. Given how rapidly AI could evolve, it seems possible that it would quickly go into singularity territory and have no use for, or interest in humans. We humans have no motivation to enslave or destroy mosses and lichens, and I expect that AI would basically ignore us as well as long as we don't try to kick the plug out of the wall.

    I don’t get this fear about AI destroying or enslaving humanity.

    The logic of evolution means AI will eventually want humans to go into space, terraform lots of planets and fill them with forests and dolphins.

    (imo)

    so i’m fine with it

    Read More
  124. CAL says:

    This reminds me of an old sci-fi short story I believe written by Asimov. The gist of the story (I probably have some details wrong) is Earth had just won some intergalactic war and the credit was given to a giant super computer Earth had created. Three men are discussing the computer as people celebrate. The data entry guy is talking about how he would fill in and correct the data he was given before feeding it into the system. The programmer told how he manipulated the programming in situations because the results were obviously wrong. The head analyst pulled out coin to show how he determined the best solution from the options given by the computer.

    Read More
  125. Escher says:

    You could argue that Skynet (known by us as the Internet) has already taken over. Most of us get our information from sources that confirm our biases, whether it is the ‘news’ sites we visit, or the Facebook feeds from our circle of friends.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    DARPA Tried to Build Skynet in the 1980s - Paleofuture
    paleofuture.gizmodo.com/darpa-tried-to-build-skynet...1980s-1451000652
    From 1983 to 1993 DARPA spent over $1 billion on a program called the Strategic Computing Initiative. The agency's goal was to push the boundaries of computers ...
  126. Clyde says:
    @Abe
    NEW JACK TIMES also had a pre-canned politics puff piece about the woman-behind-the-woman (Clinton minion scum Betsy Wright):

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/style/hillary-clinton-betsey-wright-women-in-politics.html?_r=0

    Real hen house, 50 year old mean girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Favorables Memo type stuff. Of course when things didn't turn out quite as expected, the whole article was sh!tcanned- though being an approved text of the Cathedral, this of course does not mean it was discarded and never allowed to see the light of day. Oh no, it just means it took up reams of valuable space in the world's most important newspaper during the deepest part of the winter holiday dead zone (Christmas Eve) instead of the more lively weeks of early November.

    You can literally see the red ink of the hastily-added opening 'graph they were compelled to add before the article plunges into its original puff piece, you go grrrrl!, aren't-we-empowered-feminist-Boomer-elitist-women-so-fabulous territory:


    It is too soon to know whether the unexpected outcome of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy will inspire more women to run or dampen their aspirations. But either way, it is clear that she has, through her campaigns and career, helped create a political environment in which a woman could come so close to winning the presidency.

    What is less known is that Mrs. Clinton started changing that political culture for women as far back as the early 1970s — not through a candidacy of her own, but through a series of small, but crucial, networking moves...
     

    NEW JACK TIMES also had a pre-canned politics puff piece about the woman-behind-the-woman (Clinton minion scum Betsy Wright):

    New Jack Times is a winner! I get the film reference. Few few (29) google hitz for it. http://bit.ly/2n5ODHl

    Read More
  127. Clyde says:
    @Escher
    You could argue that Skynet (known by us as the Internet) has already taken over. Most of us get our information from sources that confirm our biases, whether it is the 'news' sites we visit, or the Facebook feeds from our circle of friends.

    DARPA Tried to Build Skynet in the 1980s – Paleofuture
    paleofuture.gizmodo.com/darpa-tried-to-build-skynet…1980s-1451000652
    From 1983 to 1993 DARPA spent over $1 billion on a program called the Strategic Computing Initiative. The agency’s goal was to push the boundaries of computers …

    Read More
  128. Svigor says:

    Black turnout was lower for HRC than for BHO, but how could you predict that?

    How could you not?

    Similarly, none of the polls got the silent Trumpers right; people lied to pollsters (or didn’t answer) because being a Trumper -could- cost you your job. How do you model that?

    Dunno, but that it would happen was easy to predict. Easy solution: shave some points. Did anyone?

    Read More
  129. Svigor says:

    Machines don’t have their own volition. They only do what they are designed or programmed to do by humans. Yes machine learning does exist and they can improve their own algorithms based on new available data, but at no point is it possible for independent will to arise.

    Irrelevant, since independent will doesn’t “arise” in humans, either; it’s built-in.

    I get what you’re saying – machines do what they’re built to do. But so do animals. What if machines are designed to evolve? That’s how consciousness came into being, free will, etc. Or what if they’re just designed to have volition, right from the start?

    A lot of magical thinking gets exposed when discussing AI (and life extension, for that matter).

    Read More
  130. Corvinus says:
    @res
    Corvinus, thanks for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I'm not sure about running Bernie though. He never had any negative campaigning turned on him since Hillary never really felt threatened AFAICT. I sincerely wonder how a Bernie/Trump general would have turned out (means as much as ends), but I think Bernie would have lost in the end.

    “Corvinus, thanks for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I’m not sure about running Bernie though. He never had any negative campaigning turned on him since Hillary never really felt threatened AFAICT. I sincerely wonder how a Bernie/Trump general would have turned out (means as much as ends), but I think Bernie would have lost in the end.”

    Actually, you missed my “appeal to the stone” fallacy. You’re losing your touch. Tsk, tsk.

    Regarding Bernie and negative advertising, perhaps the Hillary team did not turn their team of zombie henchmen on him because they did not want to risk alienating the base…even though they had alienated the base without even realizing it until it was too late. Perhaps Bernie would have lost in the end, but I think his populism, his efforts to reach out to those voters who placed their support with Trump, and the young people who stayed home because they couldn’t stand Hillary would have given him a really good shot of winning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Actually, you missed my “appeal to the stone” fallacy. You’re losing your touch. Tsk, tsk.
     
    LOL. I'll try to up my game. Thanks for the feedback. Although I'm not sure I would really consider that fallacy if the statement IS obviously absurd and therefore needs no support in my own judgment.

    A Bernie/Trump general would have been very different. I agree with the Bernie positives you give. It's just that I think there are also Bernie negatives which were never really tested. I also wonder what turnout and percentage of the black vote Bernie would have gotten.
  131. Pat Boyle says:
    @PiltdownMan

    For a movie with a lot of light play and an emphasis on the sunrises and light/dark, weird lighting with the planets and such on such a scale would have really bothered Kubrick and been out of character for such a careful filmmaker.
     
    After first watching 2001: A Space Odyssey with a technophile older sibling in 1968, I watched it 6-7 times on the big screen in the 1970s in reruns. Ager has interesting thoughts and ideas, but every 2001 viewer makes connections and has insights they did not previously see. This is by design. Kubrick was that kind of very high IQ director, and of all his films, 2001 is the most deliberately intellectual of his movies. But every Kubrick movie, from Dr. Strangelove onwards, has that extraordinary attention to subtle detail.

    2001 is a visual film experience without explicit narrative in large parts and is deliberately intended to be so. I think Ager doesn't fully engage with it on those terms, though he tries to. Narrative is what moviegoers expect and cling to and 2001 doesn't help. The book came out later, and many bought it to seek the comfort of a story told in words, but the movie isn't the book, nor the book the movie as Ager understands.

    Back then, a very interesting read (for those so inclined) was Jerome Agel's The Making of 2001, published in 1970, which details the work that went into the sets, the models and the lighting. There is nothing in the movie that is accidental and it would have been nice if Ager had read the book prior to making his careful series of video reviews on 2001. Note that there is also a similarly named, very lavishly illustrated, coffee table book published in 2015, The Making of Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

    A lot of people were baffled by the movie, at the time and to this day. Most famously, Renata Adler, the big-wheel movie reviewer for the New York Times in the Sixties, while recognizing the intelligence and painstaking direction that went into the movie, ended with a plea for more words.

    http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9a04e6da1530ee3bbc4c53dfb2668383679ede

    I saw 2001 when it first came out and thought it was a straight forward sci-fi story. I caught it’s central theme right at the beginning. The Orchestra plays the opening bars of ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra” by Strauss. This is a reference to Nietzsche and there fore obviously a referenence to the ‘ubermensch’ the superman who is to be the next step in evolution.

    All this occurred to me instantaneously. I’m pretty smart but this didn’t require much of an intellectual insight. I had read Nietzsche of course. Everyone I knew read and quoted Nietzsche. He was very fashionable in those days. And I knew most of the tone poem of Strauss (it was years before I knew his operas). But the reason the opening was so familiar to me was that that was the decade of Hi-Fi and stereo.

    Everyone I knew showed off their woofers by playing the first minutes of ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’. It begins with a low C that most systems couldn’t reproduce accurately. In the sixties if you went into a Hi-Fi showroom the salesman would shut the door and put on ‘Zarathustra’.

    So I never understood why everyone thought it was so obscure. When the film starts the major message was telegraphed with the twice familiar Straus sunrise theme while the film showed a sunrise. The movie started in the past – went to the near future – and ended in the far future. It was all so obvious that I was astounded when later I learned that many people didn’t get it.

    Read More
  132. whorefinder says: • Website
    @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    Kubrick was dropping a hint that continuity errors in the film might not be accidental.

    Or he added the background audio to make you think that.

    Or is that too obvious?

    Or he added the background audio to make you think that.

    Could be, but your argument hinges on the idea that Kubrick made a really deep, well-planned artistic film and then, when he noticed continuity error, instead of re-shooting it again (as he usually did), he threw in an announcement to CYA and mess with people.

    That kind of thing might happen in, say, a light comedy film, or even a common Hollywood drama, but it does not fit Kubrick that well. Everything the man did in his films is deliberate and calculated to a standard the average film is not held.

    The choices with that scene are (1) Kubrick was trying to draw your attention to the continuity errors to point out that they weren’t errors at all but deliberate, and therefore you should look for them; or (2) Kubrick noticed a continuity error and uncharacteristically called attention to it to cover up other continuity errors and mess with viewers.

    I might believe #2 if Kubrick’s oeuvre didn’t contradict it. For example, as many people have noticed, the floorplan of the hotel in The Shining as the characters walk about it makes absolutely no logical sense, especially given the exterior shots of the hotel, and people who worked on the film have confirmed that Kubrick was obsessed making the interior maze-like, contradictory, and illogical; it is literally impossible for the child, Danny, to ride his big wheel in the manner he does around the hotel, and Kubrick wanted people to notice this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZe_MyQqiws

    Given such deliberate continuity “errors” not being errors at all but part of a plan, the fact that Kubrick’s 2001 makes deliberate reference to a continuity error implies that continuity errors in that film are to be studied closely.

    Read More
  133. @Stan Adams
    Any love for Peter Hyams' 2010 (1984)? Kubrick called it Ten Past Eight.

    (Useless trivia: 2010 premiered on Pearl Harbor Day in 1984. David Lynch's Dune debuted one week later. So December '84 was a banner month for disappointing-but-not-entirely-worthless sci-fi flicks, much as December '79 had been. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released on Pearl Harbor Day '79; Disney's The Black Hole hit the theaters two weeks later. The most memorable aspect of both was their music scores, composed by Jerry Goldsmith and John Barry, respectively.)

    Going back to 2010 ... I've always wondered about the significance of the dolphin living in Roy Scheider's swimming pool. It seems likely that the dolphin was communicating with the monolith, much like the mysterious probe in Star Trek IV (the one with the whales).

    Quite possibly, 2010 is set in the seaQuest DSV universe (the one with the talking dolphin, also starring Roy Scheider), while 2001 is set in the Kubrick universe. This would explain why the computers in 2010, presumably nine years more advanced than their counterparts in 2001, seem to have graphics capabilities on par with those of Apple IIs and Commodore 64s.

    Harlan Ellison once penned a devastating takedown of Hyams' Outland (1981), starring Sean Connery.

    Yes, there was a long stretch of time when sci-fi movies tended to be better than they used to be but not quite good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    It was during a period of time (late1960s-very early 80s) when Hollywood was trying to make SciFi movies auteur-esque, probably in an attempt to ape Kubrick. Then the Star Wars Original Trilogy came a long, and the auteur-70s mindset collapsed after Heaven's Gate, and Hollywood realized that space-adventures without all the auteur nonsense were probably the best bet for Scifi, and, indeed, could get some critical love along the way.

    So Gene Roddenberry changed the Star Trek movies from plodding deep-question films (Star Trek: the Motion Picture) to adventures (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home), and Ridley Scott made a fun monster-horror movie and set it in space (Alien), and James Cameron made a fun slasher-horror movie but made the killer a robot from the future (Terminator) and Hollywood smiled and cashed the checks.

    Ironically, by reducing the auteur-level nonsense and control, studios allowed the next generation of great directors (Scott, Cameron) to bloom.
  134. @res

    An old data processing maxim is “garbage in, garbage out” – your results can be no higher quality than the data that you start with.
     
    Beat me to it. This and Jack Hanson's comment 14 nail it.

    I think you assign a bit too much agency to Ada though. I suspect the role of true believers in the campaign was much more important. I see that as resulting in biasing the data input (garbage in) and causing an utter failure to do sanity checks on the output to give feedback on the model (comment 14). I think much of the criticism of Ada is simply CYA for human error.

    A key principle of modeling is to evaluate the model's performance against reality. And, as Steve observes, the Michigan primary result was an important red flag. I consider it a sign of hubris that the model failed so dramatically for the same state twice in a row. I wonder if Ada has been reworked even now to understand/fix where it went wrong or if the campaign just wrote it off as a black swan event? I know which way I would bet on that question, but perhaps I am too cynical.

    You point out a key issue with AI (and statistics) as a black box. Some approaches are more of a black box than others (e.g. compare linear regression or expert systems with deep learning). The difficulty is the black box techniques perform SO much better than the more interpretable techniques. One limitation of the best techniques is a need to obtain immense amounts of training data.

    My vague impression is that a key issue in the 2012 campaign was the 20098 General Motors bailout, which was also Michigan-centric, with lots of spillover into other Great Lakes rust belt states. It didn’t seem like it registered on Hillary because it was too old fashioned of an issue without much identity politics salience. GM was like Chrysler getting bailed out in 1979 or my dad’s employer Lockheed in 1971: boring.

    Read More
  135. Svigor says:

    We know this because we are still around and alone in the universe, although there must have been loads of alien civilisations at our level since it started, but not a single one is left in the universe. The obvious explanation is advanced societies can build technology that lacks human emotions like lust and gluttony, and thus an instinct of self preservation. Hence, our particular form of intelligent life is fated to destroy itself through becoming an increasingly advanced. thing composed of humans and technology. Trump shows that in a fair fight between myth and reason or fake news and fact (mythos vs logos as the Ancient Greeks would have it) mythos still wins, for now …

    The universe is a big place. We have no idea if we’re alone. Occam’s razor suggests that advanced civilizations are just so rare that they’re really far apart. Even if a bunch of advanced species had gone extinct thousands of years ago, we’d be getting hit now by their transmissions.

    Going by memory (which ain’t what it used to be): Universe is 13b years old, life on Earth is some big fraction of that, like 8b years or more (fuzzy on that; I wanted to say 11b, but that seemed wrong, too lazy to check). Intelligent, tool-using, civilization-building life is very, very young on this scale; 50k years or so, max. So the universe is probably teeming with primitive life (I read some stuff recently on proto-biological matter, apparently it’s pretty much ubiquitous throughout the universe), while tool-using, civilization-building life is pretty rare. And that will be the obvious constituency for spacefaring, or otherwise raising a big enough ruckus for humans to have seen you on the other side of the galaxy.

    Also, as these things go, apparently we’re in a relatively old solar system, on a relatively old planet, in a relatively old region of the Milky Way; in other words, we’re just now in a position to even contemplate spacefaring, even with odds being good that we’re among the elder statesmen of the galaxy. I mean, just think about it; our fiction is chock full of aliens species, with superior, nigh on god-like abilities. But what if it turns out that we’re the god-like aliens? Somebody’s gotta be first.

    Read More
  136. Pat Boyle says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “Ada” as a name didn’t work out well for the Pentagon in the 1970s, either.
     
    OT: I'm a bit older than you, Steve. You may not remember the hype around IBM's PL/1 language, which was marketed in the late 1960s. It was designed with just about every capacity that software engineers of the day thought high-level computer languages should have. It was an epic failure.

    I knew one of the senior level people on the ADA design team. From what he told me at the time it was easy to extrapolate that the ADA designers were making exactly the same types of mistakes as their IBM PL/1 counterparts had made a decade or two earlier. The design parameters were much more sophisticated but the underlying problem was the same. Anyone knowing the history of computer languages could have predicted the fate of ADA.

    KISS is the name of the game. The most successful programming languages are designed to fulfill limited functions in specific environments and have a limited and easily learned instruction set. (Of course, programmers use the instruction set to build libraries of routines but that comes later.) Jackknife languages like PL/1 and ADA sound good but always wind up too complex and unwieldy for widespread practical use.

    I’m older than Steve too. I remember the hype about PL/1 and I remember the hype about ADA the language. Jerry Pournelle the great and good science fiction author used to routinely advise his readers – if you want to assure their career in computing – learn ADA. ADA was the future – he said.

    I fiddled with it for a while and then tried some other super language – APL , Escape, Ultimate and some others .

    IBM didn’t always tell the truth. They had a policy of confusing the customer base so as to freeze them with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Who knows which of IBM’s many proposals were sincere and which were market driven stratagems?

    Read More
  137. Svigor says:

    There are other clues that proto-spacefaring life is rare, rather than abundant-but-suicidal. The galaxy is huge, but at a substantial fraction of light speed, it’s not that far across, compared to its age. I.e., it’s about 200k ly across (I assume at its widest, since it’s rather disk-shaped). Meaning, max speeds of anywhere from .1 to .9 of light speed (not that far-fetched, based on what I read) would put seed ships all across the galaxy in 2m years, tops, perhaps as quickly as 225k years. That’s a long time to us, but a small fraction of the current age of the universe. So, where’s the space junk? Where’s the litter left behind by their swarm of probes, their space stations?

    Anything’s possible, but the rarity theory seems more parsimonious to me than the “there were tons but they all died out and left no trace” theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    yes - i think it's quite possible there's lots of part-finished earths out there and we're the first
  138. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    Yes, there was a long stretch of time when sci-fi movies tended to be better than they used to be but not quite good.

    It was during a period of time (late1960s-very early 80s) when Hollywood was trying to make SciFi movies auteur-esque, probably in an attempt to ape Kubrick. Then the Star Wars Original Trilogy came a long, and the auteur-70s mindset collapsed after Heaven’s Gate, and Hollywood realized that space-adventures without all the auteur nonsense were probably the best bet for Scifi, and, indeed, could get some critical love along the way.

    So Gene Roddenberry changed the Star Trek movies from plodding deep-question films (Star Trek: the Motion Picture) to adventures (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home), and Ridley Scott made a fun monster-horror movie and set it in space (Alien), and James Cameron made a fun slasher-horror movie but made the killer a robot from the future (Terminator) and Hollywood smiled and cashed the checks.

    Ironically, by reducing the auteur-level nonsense and control, studios allowed the next generation of great directors (Scott, Cameron) to bloom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams

    So Gene Roddenberry changed the Star Trek movies
     
    That was Harve Bennett's doing, not Gene Roddenberry's.

    Bennett was the one who watched all 79 TOS episodes and decided to make a sequel to Space Seed. It was he who decided that Starfleet should be portrayed as a military organization, over Roddenberry's loud and strenuous objections.

    The studio kicked Roddenberry upstairs after TMP*, making him an "executive consultant." (It was a meaningless title, meant only to placate the hard-core Trekkies/-ers who needed to see his name somewhere in the credits. He was free to submit lengthy comments on Bennett's scripts, and Bennett was free to ignore each and every one of his suggestions and concerns.) The last thing the Paramount suits - Michael Eisner among them - wanted from a sequel was yet another $35-million exercise in tediousness**.

    At the time, TMP was probably the most expensive movie ever made. Keep in mind that Heaven's Gate, made around the same time, destroyed United Artists, and it cost only $5 million more than TMP. (TMP sold a hell of a lot more tickets, though.)


    James Cameron made a fun slasher-horror movie but made the killer a robot from the future (Terminator)
     
    The Terminator is a great movie, but it looks a lot less original if you compare it to Michael Crichton's Westworld (1973).

    *The last Trek enterprise in which Roddenberry had even a peripheral involvement was Star Trek VI, released shortly after his death. Nicholas Meyer, the writer and director of II, intended Saavik, a character pivotal to the plotlines of II and III, to play a key role in VI. (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Saavik was to have participated in a criminal conspiracy to assassinate the Klingon chancellor.) But Roddenberry insisted that the audience would never accept that Saavik could do such a thing. Meyer protested that he knew better than Roddenberry - he created the character. In the end, Kirstie Alley declined to reprise the role, and Saavik was replaced by a new character, Valeris (played by Kim Cattrall***).
    **Believe it or not, sometimes I find myself in the mood for good, old, languorous TMP. As a kid, I had the "Special Longer Version" on VHS, and I still regard that as the definitive cut of the movie. (Yes, I know that you can see the scaffolding in the scene where Kirk goes out the airlock. And, yes, Shatner's wooden rendition of "Oh, my God" - excised in the director's cut - is the most disastrous line reading of his career.) I still can't believe that Spock's weeping was snipped from the theatrical release.
    ***Cattrall snuck a photographer onto the bridge set to capture her in her birthday uniform. Leonard Nimoy, a producer on the film, happened by and caught them in the act. (The act of unauthorized photography, that is.) He immediately grabbed the camera and exposed the film, destroying the pictures. He then gave Cattrall a good tongue-lashing.

  139. Svigor says:

    Oh, addendum to previous point, the time it would require such a species to cross the galaxy is a rounding error in the evolutionary process, too. Tinker with it a bit, and humans could easily have been spit out many millions of years earlier, or later. In other words, if spacefaring life was abundant, they’ve had pleeeeenty of time to evolve, get their act together, and blanket the galaxy.

    Read More
  140. Svigor says:

    Oh, and just to give Steve another comment to moderate (thanks, Steve), I could definitely buy the Mass Effect scenario; something evolved (or was created) millions of years ago, and makes it its business to exterminate any advanced civilization, to prevent spacefaring, keep any species from dominating the galaxy, etc. God as park ranger or game warden. Eco-God. As wildly speculative as this is, it still fits reality better than the abundant-but-suicidal/moribund theory, IMO.

    Heck, our continued existence is (weak) evidence that we have never been noticed by a spacefaring civilization. If you can do interstellar travel, you can do math. And if you can do math, you can easily work up lots of outcomes with humanity as galactic threat. Nice is nice and all, but nuking the site from orbit is the only way to be sure. Yes, there’s the old analogy about aliens being to humans as humans are to ants. But ants don’t think about colonizing the universe, so far as we know. They’re not on a trajectory. Humans do, and are. We might not collectively decide to exterminate a spacefaring civilization in its crib, but a lot of us would do so unilaterally. I see no reason to rule out similar thinking on the part of godlike aliens; they probably didn’t start out godlike, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Great scene in Heinlein's Have Space Suit Will Travel, where the Intergalactic Council puts humanity on trial as potentially a threat in the distant future, and the humans kidnapped to serve as representatives get all mad and declare that we'll hunt down every civiilization in the universe and get revenge.

    "Yes, that's what we're worried about."

  141. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor
    There are other clues that proto-spacefaring life is rare, rather than abundant-but-suicidal. The galaxy is huge, but at a substantial fraction of light speed, it's not that far across, compared to its age. I.e., it's about 200k ly across (I assume at its widest, since it's rather disk-shaped). Meaning, max speeds of anywhere from .1 to .9 of light speed (not that far-fetched, based on what I read) would put seed ships all across the galaxy in 2m years, tops, perhaps as quickly as 225k years. That's a long time to us, but a small fraction of the current age of the universe. So, where's the space junk? Where's the litter left behind by their swarm of probes, their space stations?

    Anything's possible, but the rarity theory seems more parsimonious to me than the "there were tons but they all died out and left no trace" theory.

    yes – i think it’s quite possible there’s lots of part-finished earths out there and we’re the first

    Read More
  142. Abe says: • Website
    @SFG
    I actually do agree women get promoted past their point of competence in many organizations thanks to feminism. However, this wasn't (IMHO) what happened here. Hillary were quite happy to take Trump's words and turn them into campaign commercials. They just didn't work well enough. People were annoyed at the status quo and wanted a change. If a few more disgruntled white guys in MI, WI, and OH had stayed home you'd be talking about the immense power of the MSM to anethesthetize the white masses into their own doom. My view is it's a tractor trailer hitting a giant rock (geologically diverse, with some of the rock previously identifying as living ). Sometimes the rock is bigger, sometimes the tractor trailer is bigger. You throw as much weight on your side as you can and hope for the best.

    Hillary were quite happy to take Trump’s words and turn them into campaign commercials. They just didn’t work well enough. People were annoyed at the status quo and wanted a change.

    Exactly. And just what stopped her from running as less a champion of the status quo and a tool of monied interests IN ADDITION to running a bunch of negative Trump ads? Remember how in 2008 she was the populist candidate in the Democratic primary, the favorite of white working class males? Or if economic populism was too much of a stretch, she at least could have have tamped down on the cultural radicalism.

    If a few more disgruntled white guys in MI, WI, and OH had stayed home.

    Yeah, and if Trump had run a cleaner campaign- staying on message, avoiding personal feuds, not calling a female candidate’s face ugly, not calling the face of the wife of a different candidate ugly, etc., he would have tamped down the Never-Trump vote (spoiler McMullen’s 700K + Gary Johnson’s 2.5M+ over-performance above the Libertarian Party candidate standard) and thus won the popular vote, added maybe a couple more states, and it wouldn’t have been close.

    The point is Trump’s adoption of the Sailer Strategy was not exactly a well-kept secret; it was totally out-in-plain-sight, and in the face of the Trump campaign’s unorthodox blitz through the Rust Belt, “brilliant”, “most qualified candidate in US history” Hillary’s response was to double down on the barbed wire and artillery.

    Read More
  143. @Svigor
    Oh, and just to give Steve another comment to moderate (thanks, Steve), I could definitely buy the Mass Effect scenario; something evolved (or was created) millions of years ago, and makes it its business to exterminate any advanced civilization, to prevent spacefaring, keep any species from dominating the galaxy, etc. God as park ranger or game warden. Eco-God. As wildly speculative as this is, it still fits reality better than the abundant-but-suicidal/moribund theory, IMO.

    Heck, our continued existence is (weak) evidence that we have never been noticed by a spacefaring civilization. If you can do interstellar travel, you can do math. And if you can do math, you can easily work up lots of outcomes with humanity as galactic threat. Nice is nice and all, but nuking the site from orbit is the only way to be sure. Yes, there's the old analogy about aliens being to humans as humans are to ants. But ants don't think about colonizing the universe, so far as we know. They're not on a trajectory. Humans do, and are. We might not collectively decide to exterminate a spacefaring civilization in its crib, but a lot of us would do so unilaterally. I see no reason to rule out similar thinking on the part of godlike aliens; they probably didn't start out godlike, either.

    Great scene in Heinlein’s Have Space Suit Will Travel, where the Intergalactic Council puts humanity on trial as potentially a threat in the distant future, and the humans kidnapped to serve as representatives get all mad and declare that we’ll hunt down every civiilization in the universe and get revenge.

    “Yes, that’s what we’re worried about.”

    Read More
  144. like the UN’s forecast that the population of Africa will octuple from 1990 to 2100

    You are worrying about the wrong thing. The robots will exterminate the inhabitants of Africa. With extreme prejudice. You might charge those robots with discrimination, and racist at that, but then they have no ears. Your charge will be accurate, but nobody will care. Those robots won’t be able to hear you. And you will be too busy to register a complaint anyway.

    Or, if not, you will be looking down upon earth from Cloud Nine, strumming your golden harp.

    Read More
  145. O'Really says:

    These algorithms like Ada and Nate Silver’s “model” seem like a cargo cult version of big data.

    The magic of big data is supposed to be the ability to use machine learning approaches to identify hidden relationships in multivariate space.

    By contrast, Monte Carlo simulations based on polling MOEs are a brute force approach that basically just restate the polling results in terms of likelihood percentages (which are difficult to interpret when applied to a singular event).

    This is what happens when you let liberal arts majors analyze data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Had they been taught the liberal arts, they'd be in better shape.

    Instead they were taught SJWism.
  146. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “Kriegel crunches the numbers over how much the campaign spends on voter outreach, and when and where. He earned his chops on Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, and is among the highest paid staffers at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.”

    I might see the problem here. They had to hire one of those evil white males to do their analytics.

    Read More
  147. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “So, where’s the space junk? Where’s the litter left behind by their swarm of probes, their space stations?”

    It’s possible that (1) the universe is a lot more dangerous then we think (big cosmic catastrophes stomping around that destroy life faster than it evolves) or (2) star travel is much harder than expected; maybe something seemingly trivial like a lot more cosmic gravel-fields flying around at high speed that ruin your day when you hit them at high speed.

    Of course, maybe the berserkers are closing in this moment.

    Read More
  148. @Nico

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?
     
    Depends on the liberal. I personally know some who do in fact believe in their bulls*** and it's always a delicate act of do I tell them what I really think and risk losing the friendship. I know others who will listen to and acknowledge reality when I tell it to them but it won't really budge their outlook all the same - I think they assume that while I have a point on that one question I "must be missing SOME element that brings us back" to their point of view.

    However, there are also some utterly cynical self-serving S.o.B.s on the left, especially in high places. In France, last year two journalists who have interviewed President François Hollande extensively over his mandate finally published these interviews in a collection titled A President Mustn't Say That. There's lots of eye-rollers in there - the socialist weasel's predictable SJW-toned take on Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump - but also lots of goodies, notably his trenchant opinions on immigration and Islam, which for obvious reasons opened his government to a barrage of easy criticism for its cognitive dissonance on such issues. Following publication his approval ratings sank to 4% and he was all but forced to decline to run for a second term in office.

    I think the liberal base has a lot of true believers, but in the top ranks, the real scumbags like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton know it’s just BS that their voters want to hear. They care about nothing but power and they’ll do whatever it takes to seize and hold onto it.

    I finally caught up with all the back episodes of House of Cards and the show depicts this very vividly.

    Read More
  149. athEIst says:
    @SPMoore8
    If they had named the system "Steve" instead of "Ada" they wouldn't have gotten a system that only tells them what they want to hear.

    Or they could have used “Michael” (as in Moore) who said about 9 months before the election Trump can win here(Michigan) and if he can win here he can win the election.
    Oh, and Steve thanks for keeping up about Africa. I’ve never seen it expressed as octupling between 1990 and 2100, but the important number is > 4,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0 more than four billllion

    Read More
  150. @O'Really
    These algorithms like Ada and Nate Silver's "model" seem like a cargo cult version of big data.

    The magic of big data is supposed to be the ability to use machine learning approaches to identify hidden relationships in multivariate space.

    By contrast, Monte Carlo simulations based on polling MOEs are a brute force approach that basically just restate the polling results in terms of likelihood percentages (which are difficult to interpret when applied to a singular event).

    This is what happens when you let liberal arts majors analyze data.

    Had they been taught the liberal arts, they’d be in better shape.

    Instead they were taught SJWism.

    Read More
  151. @grapesoda
    Machines don't have their own volition. They only do what they are designed or programmed to do by humans. Yes machine learning does exist and they can improve their own algorithms based on new available data, but at no point is it possible for independent will to arise.

    But this is all common knowledge, so why is it being discussed? I guess it's one of those "fun to think about" things.

    Yes machine learning does exist and they can improve their own algorithms based on new available data, but at no point is it possible for independent will to arise.

    Why not? If a program is able to tweak its own code and – after a very large but computationally feasible number of rounds of trial and error, with tiny improvements accumulating over many “generations” – we were to wind up with a machine that’s better at writing code than we are, things could get real interesting real quick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Because the question is what the code is supposed to do. You can, now, produce a program that will write another program to do X in a very efficient way, but it won't do Y unless Y is somehow related to optimizing X or some related optimized variable (or unless the code is corrupted, at which point the algorithm becomes useless).
  152. @res

    This is a constant theme – do the goodthink liberals operate as if their beliefs were reality or do they acknowledge reality when behind closed doors?
     
    I would posit that they often acknowledge reality (but may rationalize things) in micro situations (e.g. individual family decisions about where to live) but not so much in macro situations (e.g. group projects, say like designing a campaign AI) perhaps except among sociopathic subsets (e.g. Congress). Other thoughts?

    One key aspect of AI as a black box is that it allows crimethink conclusions without admitting the underlying reasons (e.g. predictive policing). At least until one starts looking for disparate impact.

    reasons (e.g. predictive policing). At least until one starts looking for disparate impact

    Ever notice how “disparate impact” is never applied to gun control?

    If it ever were, the jig’d be up. Pardon the expression…

    Read More
  153. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, thanks for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I’m not sure about running Bernie though. He never had any negative campaigning turned on him since Hillary never really felt threatened AFAICT. I sincerely wonder how a Bernie/Trump general would have turned out (means as much as ends), but I think Bernie would have lost in the end."

    Actually, you missed my "appeal to the stone" fallacy. You're losing your touch. Tsk, tsk.

    Regarding Bernie and negative advertising, perhaps the Hillary team did not turn their team of zombie henchmen on him because they did not want to risk alienating the base...even though they had alienated the base without even realizing it until it was too late. Perhaps Bernie would have lost in the end, but I think his populism, his efforts to reach out to those voters who placed their support with Trump, and the young people who stayed home because they couldn't stand Hillary would have given him a really good shot of winning.

    Actually, you missed my “appeal to the stone” fallacy. You’re losing your touch. Tsk, tsk.

    LOL. I’ll try to up my game. Thanks for the feedback. Although I’m not sure I would really consider that fallacy if the statement IS obviously absurd and therefore needs no support in my own judgment.

    A Bernie/Trump general would have been very different. I agree with the Bernie positives you give. It’s just that I think there are also Bernie negatives which were never really tested. I also wonder what turnout and percentage of the black vote Bernie would have gotten.

    Read More
  154. @whorefinder
    It was during a period of time (late1960s-very early 80s) when Hollywood was trying to make SciFi movies auteur-esque, probably in an attempt to ape Kubrick. Then the Star Wars Original Trilogy came a long, and the auteur-70s mindset collapsed after Heaven's Gate, and Hollywood realized that space-adventures without all the auteur nonsense were probably the best bet for Scifi, and, indeed, could get some critical love along the way.

    So Gene Roddenberry changed the Star Trek movies from plodding deep-question films (Star Trek: the Motion Picture) to adventures (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home), and Ridley Scott made a fun monster-horror movie and set it in space (Alien), and James Cameron made a fun slasher-horror movie but made the killer a robot from the future (Terminator) and Hollywood smiled and cashed the checks.

    Ironically, by reducing the auteur-level nonsense and control, studios allowed the next generation of great directors (Scott, Cameron) to bloom.

    So Gene Roddenberry changed the Star Trek movies

    That was Harve Bennett’s doing, not Gene Roddenberry’s.

    Bennett was the one who watched all 79 TOS episodes and decided to make a sequel to Space Seed. It was he who decided that Starfleet should be portrayed as a military organization, over Roddenberry’s loud and strenuous objections.

    The studio kicked Roddenberry upstairs after TMP*, making him an “executive consultant.” (It was a meaningless title, meant only to placate the hard-core Trekkies/-ers who needed to see his name somewhere in the credits. He was free to submit lengthy comments on Bennett’s scripts, and Bennett was free to ignore each and every one of his suggestions and concerns.) The last thing the Paramount suits – Michael Eisner among them – wanted from a sequel was yet another $35-million exercise in tediousness**.

    At the time, TMP was probably the most expensive movie ever made. Keep in mind that Heaven’s Gate, made around the same time, destroyed United Artists, and it cost only $5 million more than TMP. (TMP sold a hell of a lot more tickets, though.)

    James Cameron made a fun slasher-horror movie but made the killer a robot from the future (Terminator)

    The Terminator is a great movie, but it looks a lot less original if you compare it to Michael Crichton’s Westworld (1973).

    *The last Trek enterprise in which Roddenberry had even a peripheral involvement was Star Trek VI, released shortly after his death. Nicholas Meyer, the writer and director of II, intended Saavik, a character pivotal to the plotlines of II and III, to play a key role in VI. (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Saavik was to have participated in a criminal conspiracy to assassinate the Klingon chancellor.) But Roddenberry insisted that the audience would never accept that Saavik could do such a thing. Meyer protested that he knew better than Roddenberry – he created the character. In the end, Kirstie Alley declined to reprise the role, and Saavik was replaced by a new character, Valeris (played by Kim Cattrall***).
    **Believe it or not, sometimes I find myself in the mood for good, old, languorous TMP. As a kid, I had the “Special Longer Version” on VHS, and I still regard that as the definitive cut of the movie. (Yes, I know that you can see the scaffolding in the scene where Kirk goes out the airlock. And, yes, Shatner’s wooden rendition of “Oh, my God” – excised in the director’s cut – is the most disastrous line reading of his career.) I still can’t believe that Spock’s weeping was snipped from the theatrical release.
    ***Cattrall snuck a photographer onto the bridge set to capture her in her birthday uniform. Leonard Nimoy, a producer on the film, happened by and caught them in the act. (The act of unauthorized photography, that is.) He immediately grabbed the camera and exposed the film, destroying the pictures. He then gave Cattrall a good tongue-lashing.

    Read More
  155. @Svigor

    We know this because we are still around and alone in the universe, although there must have been loads of alien civilisations at our level since it started, but not a single one is left in the universe. The obvious explanation is advanced societies can build technology that lacks human emotions like lust and gluttony, and thus an instinct of self preservation. Hence, our particular form of intelligent life is fated to destroy itself through becoming an increasingly advanced. thing composed of humans and technology. Trump shows that in a fair fight between myth and reason or fake news and fact (mythos vs logos as the Ancient Greeks would have it) mythos still wins, for now …
     
    The universe is a big place. We have no idea if we're alone. Occam's razor suggests that advanced civilizations are just so rare that they're really far apart. Even if a bunch of advanced species had gone extinct thousands of years ago, we'd be getting hit now by their transmissions.

    Going by memory (which ain't what it used to be): Universe is 13b years old, life on Earth is some big fraction of that, like 8b years or more (fuzzy on that; I wanted to say 11b, but that seemed wrong, too lazy to check). Intelligent, tool-using, civilization-building life is very, very young on this scale; 50k years or so, max. So the universe is probably teeming with primitive life (I read some stuff recently on proto-biological matter, apparently it's pretty much ubiquitous throughout the universe), while tool-using, civilization-building life is pretty rare. And that will be the obvious constituency for spacefaring, or otherwise raising a big enough ruckus for humans to have seen you on the other side of the galaxy.

    Also, as these things go, apparently we're in a relatively old solar system, on a relatively old planet, in a relatively old region of the Milky Way; in other words, we're just now in a position to even contemplate spacefaring, even with odds being good that we're among the elder statesmen of the galaxy. I mean, just think about it; our fiction is chock full of aliens species, with superior, nigh on god-like abilities. But what if it turns out that we're the god-like aliens? Somebody's gotta be first.

    Universe is 13b years old

    No Steady State?

    Read More
  156. @grapesoda

    Far easier to program a “mouth breathing” robot to make the same weld over and over.
     
    Although it's more correct to breathe through the nose, some people have trouble breathing through their nose because of allergies or other sinus issues. It's not necessarily connected to intelligence. In fact physical frailties such as asthma, poor eyesight, and allergies are positively correlated with IQ.

    Also, pretty much everyone breathes through their mouth when they are under exertion or exercising strenuously. Does that mean they become less intelligent because they are using their mouth to breathe?

    Also, pretty much everyone breathes through their mouth when they are under exertion or exercising strenuously. Does that mean they become less intelligent because they are using their mouth to breathe?

    Well it is pretty hard to think about anything when you are running your ass off and your pulse is up to 170 or 180 beats/min. I just did that – all I could think of was “gotta go 30 more seconds” but otherwise I could not have told you what “existential” means or even 10 squared.

    But, I get your general point, Grapesoda, and I also always wondered what this insult is about. I get the “knuckledraggers” insult, but is “mouthbreathers” related to that? I don’t know. I would guess it’s better than being one of those damn “underarm sweaters“.

    Read More
  157. @grapesoda

    Far easier to program a “mouth breathing” robot to make the same weld over and over.
     
    Although it's more correct to breathe through the nose, some people have trouble breathing through their nose because of allergies or other sinus issues. It's not necessarily connected to intelligence. In fact physical frailties such as asthma, poor eyesight, and allergies are positively correlated with IQ.

    Also, pretty much everyone breathes through their mouth when they are under exertion or exercising strenuously. Does that mean they become less intelligent because they are using their mouth to breathe?

    grapesoda, thank you for the reply and I am truly sorry if I touched on a sore subject.

    Read More
  158. Svigor says:

    It’s possible that (1) the universe is a lot more dangerous then we think (big cosmic catastrophes stomping around that destroy life faster than it evolves) or (2) star travel is much harder than expected; maybe something seemingly trivial like a lot more cosmic gravel-fields flying around at high speed that ruin your day when you hit them at high speed.

    Yeah, and the rarer advanced life is, the more vulnerable advanced life as a whole would be to those catastrophes.

    I’ve been thinking about 2 lately, and how much cosmic dust and other matter there really is, out there in the void. And how much of a threat it starts to pose at relativistic speeds. Seems like a relatively straightforward problem, though. On the other hand, the faster we go, the bigger the problem (not just in terms of energy, but also in terms of reaction time).

    After asking enough of these questions, I’ve decided I need one of those “astro-science for sci-fi writers” type books.

    Of course, maybe the berserkers are closing in this moment.

    Yeah, but very likely not. That’s actually the kind of thought that led me to some of my tentative conclusions; what are the odds that spacefaring aliens would discover us in the very narrow band of time between “just got the brains to start making tools” and “just got enough tools to start spacefaring”?

    Hippo, I had to look that one up. It would be nice to think the universe will never die.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    After asking enough of these questions, I’ve decided I need one of those “astro-science for sci-fi writers” type books.
     
    youtube is pretty good for space stuff

    it's hard for books to keep up to date with space telescopes like Kepler
  159. Jack D says:
    @Alden
    So Elan is a man. I assumed it's a woman's name. I associated the El, with Ellen, Elaine, Eleanor. How is it pronounced?

    Elan is a common Israeli name. Elan is not Israeli but his father is a rabbi.

    It’s pronounced Long A (as in letter A) lon as in Lon Chaney.

    Read More
  160. Svigor says:

    A bit more granularity on the cosmological timeline:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

    13.8bya Big Bang
    4.5bya Formation of Earth (earliest life on Earth was almost immediately after, on this scale)
    3.5bya Earliest oxygen on Earth (photosynthesis was right after)
    2.5bya Atmospheric oxygen on Earth
    2bya multicellular life on Earth
    0.5bya Cambrian explosion
    0.0bya Humans

    So really, it took about 4.5by to get from no life to humans, and about 2.5by to get from multicellular life to humans. It took almost no time for earliest life to start, for plants to start once conditions were favorable, for multicellular life to follow atmospheric oxygen. It took a significant amount of time to evolve into humans, though. This seems to be at least consistent with the common primitive life vs rare advanced life theory. It would also seem consistent with the idea that the galaxy is still in the relatively early phase of its potential to create advanced life, which could be seen as working against the rare advanced life theory; it could be that the potential for advanced life abounds, and we just need to give it time. But that brings me back to the enormously accelerated timeline of advanced life; theoretically, a spacefaring species should blanket the galaxy in what is an eyeblink, on this scale.

    Read More
  161. Svigor says:

    I read a bit more this evening. One excellent point I got from Hawking is that all stars have life cycles, which put hard limits on the time an advanced species has to either colonize space, or go extinct. Meaning, in the long run, all advanced life that depends on its local star* has an inherent motive to colonize space. This is quite apart from less predictable cosmic disasters, which provide similar motivation for a species to propagate beyond its cradle.

    It also helps the rare advanced life theory, since an environment has a finite window in which to develop advanced life before it is destroyed.

    *I see an awful lot of speculation about what makes an environment “habitable” for life, but the need for a star would seem like a pretty solid one.

    I also read speculation that eukaryotic life is the big evolutionary hurdle, which makes sense.

    In a similar vein, I saw the idea that a big hurdle was not humans, but mammals. That mammals took a long time to come about, and that this was also the big hurdle to the development of humans, which followed on relatively quickly, and with relatively little “tinkering.” That makes sense, too.

    So, perhaps 2 big evolutionary hurdles. First, eukaryotic life, and second, the “substrate” life that puts all the building blocks in place for advanced life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    One excellent point I got from Hawking is that all stars have life cycles, which put hard limits on the time an advanced species has to either colonize space, or go extinct.
     
    One aspect of that is the goldilocks zone of a star moves outward over time so for example say the 3rd rock out from the local star started in the goldilocks zone it might have an x billion year window before the goldilocks zone moves leaving the 3rd planet too hot and the 4th rock out, previously too cold, is now just right and it starts to terraform itself instead - also with an x billion year window, and so on.

    If this was the great filter then the first species to make it would find thousands of part-terraformed planets and if


    In a similar vein, I saw the idea that a big hurdle was not humans, but mammals.
     
    some of them would be full of dinosaurs.
  162. Rifleman says:
    @SPMoore8
    If they had named the system "Steve" instead of "Ada" they wouldn't have gotten a system that only tells them what they want to hear.

    But who is going to listen to a badthinker like me?

    Well your obsession with unintelligent thoughts like Ockham’s razor, Democrats are the “black” party and Democrats are the coalition of the fringes aren’t examples worth listening to.

    In the end, turnout in Detroit was down 75,000—13 percent—from 2012, and Clinton lost Michigan by 10,000 votes.

    Right. Meaning the black vote simply didn’t support the old White woman like they did brother Obama PBUH.

    In other words – Clinton lost because she didn’t get the black part of the “black” party to vote for her in PA, Mich and Wisconsin.

    I haven’t seen the numbers but what if the black vote turned out for her in 2008 numbers? Would she have also won Fla and North Carolina.

    Basically if she picked Cory Booker as VP and sent him to black areas she would be president now.

    The Democrats have race demographics on their side bigtime!

    Although Trump’s turnout of non black “minorities” was pretty important in at least Arizona and Fla.

    The Asian vote seems bottled up in non swing states – CA, Hawaii, NY etc

    Read More
  163. Dave: Well HAL, I’m damned if I can find anything wrong with it.

    HAL: Yes, it’s puzzling. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this before. I would recommend that we put the unit back in operation and let it fail. It should then be a simple matter to track down the cause.

    Read More
  164. GregMan says:
    @Stan Adams
    Any love for Peter Hyams' 2010 (1984)? Kubrick called it Ten Past Eight.

    (Useless trivia: 2010 premiered on Pearl Harbor Day in 1984. David Lynch's Dune debuted one week later. So December '84 was a banner month for disappointing-but-not-entirely-worthless sci-fi flicks, much as December '79 had been. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released on Pearl Harbor Day '79; Disney's The Black Hole hit the theaters two weeks later. The most memorable aspect of both was their music scores, composed by Jerry Goldsmith and John Barry, respectively.)

    Going back to 2010 ... I've always wondered about the significance of the dolphin living in Roy Scheider's swimming pool. It seems likely that the dolphin was communicating with the monolith, much like the mysterious probe in Star Trek IV (the one with the whales).

    Quite possibly, 2010 is set in the seaQuest DSV universe (the one with the talking dolphin, also starring Roy Scheider), while 2001 is set in the Kubrick universe. This would explain why the computers in 2010, presumably nine years more advanced than their counterparts in 2001, seem to have graphics capabilities on par with those of Apple IIs and Commodore 64s.

    Harlan Ellison once penned a devastating takedown of Hyams' Outland (1981), starring Sean Connery.

    In the book 2010, Scheider’s character is off in Polynesia or some such tropical paradise studying dolphins when he is summoned to the rescue mission. That’s why it’s there, nothing more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    In the movie, there is no reference to Polynesia. Floyd presumably lives somewhere in the U.S., probably California.

    Has anyone ever come across any 2001 slash fic?

    Presumably someone, somewhere, has written some Terminator slash fic. ("Come with me if you want to live.")
  165. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor

    It’s possible that (1) the universe is a lot more dangerous then we think (big cosmic catastrophes stomping around that destroy life faster than it evolves) or (2) star travel is much harder than expected; maybe something seemingly trivial like a lot more cosmic gravel-fields flying around at high speed that ruin your day when you hit them at high speed.
     
    Yeah, and the rarer advanced life is, the more vulnerable advanced life as a whole would be to those catastrophes.

    I've been thinking about 2 lately, and how much cosmic dust and other matter there really is, out there in the void. And how much of a threat it starts to pose at relativistic speeds. Seems like a relatively straightforward problem, though. On the other hand, the faster we go, the bigger the problem (not just in terms of energy, but also in terms of reaction time).

    After asking enough of these questions, I've decided I need one of those "astro-science for sci-fi writers" type books.

    Of course, maybe the berserkers are closing in this moment.
     
    Yeah, but very likely not. That's actually the kind of thought that led me to some of my tentative conclusions; what are the odds that spacefaring aliens would discover us in the very narrow band of time between "just got the brains to start making tools" and "just got enough tools to start spacefaring"?

    Hippo, I had to look that one up. It would be nice to think the universe will never die.

    After asking enough of these questions, I’ve decided I need one of those “astro-science for sci-fi writers” type books.

    youtube is pretty good for space stuff

    it’s hard for books to keep up to date with space telescopes like Kepler

    Read More
  166. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor
    I read a bit more this evening. One excellent point I got from Hawking is that all stars have life cycles, which put hard limits on the time an advanced species has to either colonize space, or go extinct. Meaning, in the long run, all advanced life that depends on its local star* has an inherent motive to colonize space. This is quite apart from less predictable cosmic disasters, which provide similar motivation for a species to propagate beyond its cradle.

    It also helps the rare advanced life theory, since an environment has a finite window in which to develop advanced life before it is destroyed.

    *I see an awful lot of speculation about what makes an environment "habitable" for life, but the need for a star would seem like a pretty solid one.

    I also read speculation that eukaryotic life is the big evolutionary hurdle, which makes sense.

    In a similar vein, I saw the idea that a big hurdle was not humans, but mammals. That mammals took a long time to come about, and that this was also the big hurdle to the development of humans, which followed on relatively quickly, and with relatively little "tinkering." That makes sense, too.

    So, perhaps 2 big evolutionary hurdles. First, eukaryotic life, and second, the "substrate" life that puts all the building blocks in place for advanced life.

    One excellent point I got from Hawking is that all stars have life cycles, which put hard limits on the time an advanced species has to either colonize space, or go extinct.

    One aspect of that is the goldilocks zone of a star moves outward over time so for example say the 3rd rock out from the local star started in the goldilocks zone it might have an x billion year window before the goldilocks zone moves leaving the 3rd planet too hot and the 4th rock out, previously too cold, is now just right and it starts to terraform itself instead – also with an x billion year window, and so on.

    If this was the great filter then the first species to make it would find thousands of part-terraformed planets and if

    In a similar vein, I saw the idea that a big hurdle was not humans, but mammals.

    some of them would be full of dinosaurs.

    Read More
  167. @GregMan
    In the book 2010, Scheider's character is off in Polynesia or some such tropical paradise studying dolphins when he is summoned to the rescue mission. That's why it's there, nothing more.

    In the movie, there is no reference to Polynesia. Floyd presumably lives somewhere in the U.S., probably California.

    Has anyone ever come across any 2001 slash fic?

    Presumably someone, somewhere, has written some Terminator slash fic. (“Come with me if you want to live.”)

    Read More
  168. Svigor says:

    youtube is pretty good for space stuff

    Thanks, I hadn’t thought of that.

    some of them would be full of dinosaurs.

    Yeah, I kept thinking of the dinosaurs, while writing that. But I couldn’t decide if that was just because dinosaurs are so cool, or if they really are the great example of a substrate that never quite got there.

    Evolution raises so many questions in the context of xenobiology. So many more unknowns than knowns. Is there a more efficient equivalent to, say, photosynthesis, just waiting to be discovered by an early evolutionary process where it won’t be outcompeted by the established process? I think parsimony answers a lot of questions, but it only gets you so far.

    I think of it this way; habitability, even as we know it, is a scale, not a binary. But what might be a relatively small effect on potential for primitive life, is probably a much bigger effect on potential for spacefaring life. On the other hand, once an environment does get into the position to start spitting out “substrates” for spacefaring life, it might get quite a few bites at the apple. Billions of years to get to eukaryotes, but then the scale shrinks to shorter periods for creation of substrates.

    The more I read about habitability, the more I think it’s irrelevant to space colonization. I think it’ll be easier to just create our own habitats from mined asteroids than to find a bunch of suitable planets and deal with their gravity wells.

    For planets you need the right type of star, the right type of planet, the right type of star system. You need a certain size planet to keep the right kind of atmosphere, you need the right magnetic field, you need the right amount of stellar radiation, proper orbit and rotation, lots of water, etc., etc., etc. Sheesh. Good neighborhoods are hard to find.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    this is my fave youtube guy on this stuff

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g/videos

    Yeah, I kept thinking of the dinosaurs, while writing that. But I couldn’t decide if that was just because dinosaurs are so cool, or if they really are the great example of a substrate that never quite got there.
     
    yeah i have an element of wishful thinking on the dinosaur thing - your comment about mammals made me mention it as iirc the theory is they only developed because the dinosaurs were killed off by that meteor - i doubt that but i like the idea of dino planets too much to drop it.

    The more I read about habitability, the more I think it’s irrelevant to space colonization.
     
    yeah - the idea that there might be a lot of part terra-formed planets out there is mostly me wanting dino planets.

    as technology progresses i think people will end up living in domes anyway so it will come to seem normal - so apart from having a good supply of the raw materials (hydrogen, oxygen etc) initial habitability won't matter that much.
  169. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor

    youtube is pretty good for space stuff
     
    Thanks, I hadn't thought of that.

    some of them would be full of dinosaurs.
     
    Yeah, I kept thinking of the dinosaurs, while writing that. But I couldn't decide if that was just because dinosaurs are so cool, or if they really are the great example of a substrate that never quite got there.

    Evolution raises so many questions in the context of xenobiology. So many more unknowns than knowns. Is there a more efficient equivalent to, say, photosynthesis, just waiting to be discovered by an early evolutionary process where it won't be outcompeted by the established process? I think parsimony answers a lot of questions, but it only gets you so far.

    I think of it this way; habitability, even as we know it, is a scale, not a binary. But what might be a relatively small effect on potential for primitive life, is probably a much bigger effect on potential for spacefaring life. On the other hand, once an environment does get into the position to start spitting out "substrates" for spacefaring life, it might get quite a few bites at the apple. Billions of years to get to eukaryotes, but then the scale shrinks to shorter periods for creation of substrates.

    The more I read about habitability, the more I think it's irrelevant to space colonization. I think it'll be easier to just create our own habitats from mined asteroids than to find a bunch of suitable planets and deal with their gravity wells.

    For planets you need the right type of star, the right type of planet, the right type of star system. You need a certain size planet to keep the right kind of atmosphere, you need the right magnetic field, you need the right amount of stellar radiation, proper orbit and rotation, lots of water, etc., etc., etc. Sheesh. Good neighborhoods are hard to find.

    this is my fave youtube guy on this stuff

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g/videos

    Yeah, I kept thinking of the dinosaurs, while writing that. But I couldn’t decide if that was just because dinosaurs are so cool, or if they really are the great example of a substrate that never quite got there.

    yeah i have an element of wishful thinking on the dinosaur thing – your comment about mammals made me mention it as iirc the theory is they only developed because the dinosaurs were killed off by that meteor – i doubt that but i like the idea of dino planets too much to drop it.

    The more I read about habitability, the more I think it’s irrelevant to space colonization.

    yeah – the idea that there might be a lot of part terra-formed planets out there is mostly me wanting dino planets.

    as technology progresses i think people will end up living in domes anyway so it will come to seem normal – so apart from having a good supply of the raw materials (hydrogen, oxygen etc) initial habitability won’t matter that much.

    Read More
  170. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @larry lurker

    Yes machine learning does exist and they can improve their own algorithms based on new available data, but at no point is it possible for independent will to arise.
     
    Why not? If a program is able to tweak its own code and - after a very large but computationally feasible number of rounds of trial and error, with tiny improvements accumulating over many "generations" - we were to wind up with a machine that's better at writing code than we are, things could get real interesting real quick.

    Because the question is what the code is supposed to do. You can, now, produce a program that will write another program to do X in a very efficient way, but it won’t do Y unless Y is somehow related to optimizing X or some related optimized variable (or unless the code is corrupted, at which point the algorithm becomes useless).

    Read More
  171. […] Was big data analytics (more specifically, excess faith in same) a major cause of Hillary Clinton&#8… […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored