Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Historical evidence

Looks like horses may not have been extinct in pre-Columbian North America after all, according to the DNA evidence.

Link: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/08/28/neanderhorse/

-Max

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."

The Parable of Two Programmers

[re-posting from https://realmensch.org/2017/08/25/the-parable-of-the-two-programmers/]

The Parable of the Two Programmers

Neil W. Rickert

Once upon a time, unbeknown to each other, the "Automated Accounting Applications Association" and the "Consolidated Computerized Capital Corporation" decided that they needed the identical program to perform a certain service. Automated hired a programmer-analyst, Alan, to solve their problem.

Meanwhile Consolidated decided to ask a newly hired entry-level programmer, Charles, to tackle the job, to see if he was as good as he pretended.

Alan, having had experience in difficult programming projects, decided to use the PQR structured design methodology. With this in mind he asked his department manager to assign another three programmers as a programming team. Then the team went to work, churning our preliminary reports and problem analyses.

Back at Consolidated, Charles spent some time thinking about the problem. His fellow employees noticed that Charles often sat with his feet on the desk, drinking coffee. He was occasionally seen at his computer terminal, but his office mate could tell from the rhythmic striking of keys that he was actually playing Space Invaders.

By now, the team at Automated was starting to write code. The programmers were spending about half their time writing and compiling code, and the rest of their time in conference, discussing the interfaces between the various modules.

His office mate noticed that Charles had finally given up on Space Invaders. Instead he now divided his time between drinking coffee with his feet on the table, and scribbling on little scraps of paper. His scribbling didn't seem to be Tic Tac Toe, but it didn't exactly make much sense, either.

Two months have gone by. The team at Automated finally releases an implementation timetable. In another two months they will have a test version of the program. Then a two month period of testing and enhancing should yield a completed version.

The manager of Charles has by now [become] tired of seeing him goof off. He decides to confront him. But as he walks into Charles's office, he is surprised to see Charles busy entering code at his terminal. He decides to postpone the confrontation, so makes some small talk then leaves. However, he begins to keep a closer watch on Charles, so that when the opportunity presents itself he can confront him. Not looking forward to an unpleasant conversation, he is pleased to notice that Charles seems to be busy most of the time. He has even been seen to delay his lunch, and to stay after work two or three days a week.

At the end of three months, Charles announces he has completed the project. He submits a 500 line program. The program appears to be clearly written, and when tested it does everything required in the specifications. In fact it even has a few additional convenience features which might significantly improve the usability of the program. The program is put into test, and, except for one quickly corrected oversight, performs well.

The team at Automated has by now completed two of the four major modules required for their program. These modules are now undergoing testing while the other modules are completed.

After another three weeks, Alan announces that the preliminary version is ready one week ahead of schedule. He supplies a list of the deficiencies that he expects to correct. The program is placed under test. The users find a number of bugs and deficiencies, other than those listed. As Alan explains, this is no surprise. After all this is a preliminary version in which bugs were expected.

After about two more months, the team has completed its production version of the program. It consists of about 2,500 lines of code. When tested it seems to satisfy most of the original specifications. It has omitted on or two features, and is very fussy about the format of its input data. However the company decides to install the program. They can always train their data-entry staff to enter data in the strict format required. The program is handed over to some maintenance programmers to eventually incorporate the missing features.

SEQUEL:

At first Charles's supervisor was impressed. But as he read through the source code, he realized that the project was really much simpler than he had originally thought. It now seemed apparent that this was not much of a challenge even for a beginning programmer.

Charles did produce about 5 lines of code per day. This is perhaps a little above average. However, considering the simplicity of the program, it was nothing exceptional. Also his supervisor remembered his two months of goofing off.

At his next salary review Charles was given a raise which was about half the inflation over the period. He was not given a promotion. After about a year he became discouraged and left Consolidated.

At Automated, Alan was complimented for completing his project on schedule. His supervisor looked over the program. With a few minutes of thumbing through he saw that the company standards about structured programming were being observed. He quickly gave up attempting to read the program however; it seemed quite incomprehensible. He realized by now that the project was really much more complex that he had originally assumed, and he congratulated Alan again on his achievement.

The team had produced over 3 lines of code per programmer per day. This was about average, but, considering the complexity of the problem, could be considered to be exceptional. Alan was given a hefty pay raise, and promoted to Systems Analyst as a reward for his achievement.

[Different people might get different things out of this parable. To me it's a reminder to take time to relax and think things through. -Max]

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."

Friday, September 7, 2018

That's Life

Here's a story about Xave that I like to tell people. It's the meanest thing I ever did to my little brother:

Once upon a time, I must have been maybe fifteen or so and Xave would have been maybe eight years old, and Xave really, really wanted someone to play Life, the board game, with him. I think he asked my sisters and they must have said no, so he came to me and was like, "Max, will you please play Life with me?" I was going to say no but then I had an idea which struck me as hilarious, so I said, "Okay Xave, if you give me five dollars, I'll play Life with you." He was only a little kid but he must have had some Christmas money saved up or something because after some hemming and hawing, he came up with a five dollar bill. I put out my hand and he put the five dollar bill in my hand. Then I put it in my pocket and went back to what I was doing. "That's life," I said.
And I never gave him the money back.

I feel bad about it now but at the time I was laughing too hard inside to think about the ethics of robbing a little kid of his Christmas money for the sake of a joke.

~BC

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."

Saturday, September 1, 2018

Faith and rationality

Hey Elder Wilson,

I had a discussion recently with a cousin who is disaffected with the Church, and it occurred to me that it might be worth sharing part of my response. I don't know if you've thought very hard about proof and faith and knowledge, but at your age I was very uncomfortable even talking about "what if" scenarios involving impossible counterfactuals because I didn't have a framework for thinking about it, and I wasn't comfortable making predictions anyway. (E.g. at your age I wouldn't have felt comfortable saying that Jesus not returning to Earth by 2618 A.D. is a zero probability event which cannot happen unless the Church isn't true. It would have felt presumptuous, even overconfident. But I'm not your age any more.)

Anyway, one reason faith is so important is that even though a given exercise of faith is not guaranteed to always work out the way you hope (even if everything I believe is completely true!), if you don't act on faith at all you'll never gather the necessary data to even know. So you act, then observe, then evaluate, then update your beliefs and act again, then iterate from there.

In other words, having faith is rational! There is no conflict between reason and faith (acting before gaining a sure knowledge of a thing) if you keep an open mind, as long as what you have faith in is actually true. And faith in the Son of Man's teachings, and His continuing leadership, is a true faith.

See examples below.

Max


A cousin wrote:

<<The real question I'm trying to bring up is this: If the Word of Wisdom was not correct, how could you figure this out? If scientific studies about the benefits of green tea are meaningless because the Word of Wisdom is correct no matter what, then scientific studies about the dangers of alcohol are also totally meaningless. >>

Max wrote:

If the Word of Wisdom were bogus, there are a number of ways one could know it. For example, that would imply that Jesus Christ will not be returning to Earth at any time (I am here discounting other Christian religions because frankly I don't find them credible; I've long said that if I were not a Latter-day Saint I could only be an atheist, although atheism has huge problems of its own--anyway, the point is that the only hypothesis I'm comparing to the truth of the Church is atheism). If humanity is still ticking along as usual 600 years from now, I will cheerfully acknowledge that this is a 0% probability event under the doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, and that since it has (hypothetically) happened anyway, this totally disproves the Church. There are other hypothetical events of low-but-not-0% probability which would constitute strong evidence against the Church but not a total disproof, just something that you'd have to weight against other evidence for and against. For example, while my experience with tithing is that the Lord is very proactive about blessing those who show trust in him by paying it, it is also the case that sometimes the Lord gives us trials (see Job), so let's call it a 10% chance that you could pay tithing faithfully for a year and still be in some sense worse off than if you didn't pay tithing. In the Bayesian sense, that would be strong evidence against the Church (even if the Church is completely true!), and so if the Church is indeed true you'd expect to see a lot of evidence conflicting with that evidence against it (lots of things that are very improbable if the Church is false, such as having more peace and a happier home life from devoting time and attention to scripture study). If instead all of the indicators come up negative--if everything you'd expect to be true if the Church is true turns out to be false--then you can treat the Church as untrue. I mean, don't expect _me_ to treat it as untrue in that case, because the results of my experiments are obviously different than your hypothetical results, but you could reasonably just conclude in that case that the doctrines of the Church just don't work for you. (You may or may not turn out to be correct, but you're not being unreasonable.)