Tuesday, January 3, 2017

On Admitting Ignorance and Asking Questions

From another discussion:

How Admitting Ignorance Might Have Prevented A Nuclear Holocaust.

Excerpt from Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis

Most accounts of the missile crisis attempt to answer the central questions by comparing competing hypotheses, examining specific details of the deployment of missiles in Cuba or the blockade for clues to governments' goals and intentions. On the assumption that actors do what they intended, the details of actions taken and comparisons of the costs and benefits of the different options provide evidence about intent. Yet despite the best efforts in analyzing the behavior of the Soviet and American governments in this case, including our Chapter 2, anomalies and inconsistencies abound; "inexplicables" invite attention through the lens of organizational behavior.

As a point of departure consider the troublesome Jupiter IRBM missiles (15 in all) deployed to Turkey under Turkish control, along with their nuclear warheads, which would remain under U.S. control. Originally a highly publicized gesture of reassurance to allies fearful of the Soviet ballistic missiles being fielded in the late 1950s, the crude liquid-fueled Jupiters, along with F-100 fighter-bomber aircraft and their nuclear bombs, were by 1962 part of NATO's plans for defending Europe, specifically the eastern flank—namely Turkey. These pieces on the chessboard greatly complicated the challenge President Kennedy faced in managing a confrontation with the Soviet Union over Cuba.

Unraveling the more important threads of this story requires entry into the arcane world of military acronyms or, as a colleague has named it, "acronymphomania." The term refers to the practice prevalent in Washington, especially in the Pentagon, of using acronyms that many participants in discussions do not understand but are afraid to ask about lest they expose their ignorance. In the case of Turkey, the most important acronyms were: EDP and QRA. These stand for: Emergency (or European) Defense Plan and Quick Reaction Alert.

A vignette from the tapes of the missile crisis deliberations captures Kennedy as he discovers EDP. On October 21, in one of the few direct presidential orders of those two weeks, he dictates that a special order be sent to Turkey giving commanders explicit instructions. They should not fire their nuclear weapons, even if they were attacked, unless and until they had a direct order from the White House. At the meeting on the morning of October 22, the Deputy Secretary of Defense reports that the Joint Chiefs of Staff object to sending out such a special order and thus that none had been sent.

Kennedy repeats his instruction: "We may be attacking the Cubans, and a reprisal might come. We don't want these nuclear warheads firing without our knowing about it." Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze responds, explaining that the Chiefs thought such a special instruction "compromises their standing instructions." Eager to avoid conflict between the President and the Chiefs, Bundy and Taylor attempt to move the conversation along, observing that a reminder to commanders to be sure to check their standing instructions requiring presidential authorization for the use of nuclear weapons should suffice.

But then Nitze let the cat out of the bag. "They [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] did come back with another point, and that is: NATO strategic contact requires the immediate execution of EDP in such events." Many participants undoubtedly wondered: what do "strategic contact" or "EDP" mean? In most discussions, however, that much acronymphomania, especially from authorities who presumably know what they are doing, would strangle questions.

Not with President Kennedy, who persists: "What's EDP?" Nitze replies, "The European Defense Plan, which is nuclear war. So that means . . ." Kennedy interrupts, "Now, that's why we ordered that [special instruction] on that."

Backpedaling, Nitze tried to explain that the standing order did require presidential authorization. Yet Kennedy pushed to the deeper point. "They [in Turkey] don't know . . . what we know," he said. "And therefore they don't realize the chance there will be a spot reprisal. And what we've got to do is make sure these fellows do know, so that they don't fire them off and put the United States under attack. I don't think we ought to accept the Chiefs' word on that one, Paul."

Recognizing that he has dug himself into a hole, Nitze tries to stop and move on: "I've got your point and we're going to get to that." The Cabinet Room erupts in laughter. But sensing the president's skepticism, Bundy says, "Send me the documents, and I will show them to a doubting master." More laughter. In the end, an hour later, the instruction Kennedy wanted was sent. It said unambiguously, "make certain that the Jupiters in Turkey and Italy will not be fired without specific authorization from the President. In the event of an attack, either nuclear or non-nuclear . . . U.S. custodians are to destroy or make inoperable the weapons if any attempt is made to fire them." The instructions were kept secret from the Turks, Italians, and other NATO allies.

Kennedy's caution was well founded. While Nitze and the Chiefs were certainly right that presidential authorization was legally required in order to authorize any use of U.S. nuclear weapons, all—including Kennedy—knew that the president had, by earlier order, delegated some of this authority to NATO entities in the event of attack. There were at least two reasons for such predelegation. The first was that a Soviet nuclear attack might well kill the president and other leaders before they could issue orders for retaliation. So to keep the Soviets from being tempted by this scenario, launch authority was delegated in advance if such a contingency occurred. (Presumably, the Soviets should know about the arrangement, although it is not clear anyone told them.) The second reason for predelegation was that some allied governments, such as Germany, sought proof that all NATO nuclear weapons would be used under certain predetermined conditions, so that Soviet attack would be deterred by a more automatic response that left little to chance or whims of an American president. To address the first concern the Eisenhower administration had predelegated its nuclear use authority "in the event of a nuclear attack upon the United States," authenticated as such if possible. To address the second, Eisenhower had predelegated the authority to use nuclear weapons for the defense of U.S. forces based overseas if there was "grave necessity," subject to required consultation with allies.

Don't ever be afraid to admit that you don't know something. Some day, it could save the entire world from annihilation.

-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."

Monday, January 2, 2017

Simultaneous initiative in 5E

Simultaneous initiative

From another thread:

Originally Posted by Hemlock 
I abandoned cyclic initiative almost as soon as I started running my own 5E games; you don't need to roll initiative every round at all. You only need to roll initiative when something happens that puts the order of actions front and center, e.g. when two people have a Readied Action on the same trigger (Nox: "as soon as the lights turn on I'll cast Hold Person on the githyanki!"; Githyanki: "as soon as the lights turn on I'll run over and kill Nox!") or when their actions are mutually exclusive (Neogi Wizard: "I cast Fireball on Nox"; Nox: "I duck behind total cover").

In all other situations, initiative for the round is irrelevant and can be ignored, although some players like to roll it anyway and resolve things in initiative order instead of going around and resolving in table order (e.g. counterclockwise around the table). For large combats (eight or more combatants) I often have players roll initiative to keep it simpler, but for combats with only a few key players like the aforementioned gladiatorial combat against an ogre, you can totally ignore initiative unless there happens to be a round where both the ogre and the PC barbarian get in killing blows (which didn't happen), in which case you need to roll initiative to see who goes first.

Cyclic initiative (each player declares and then acts on his own turn during a fixed initiative cycle) is the wrong solution to the "too much rolling initiative" problem. The right solution is to just roll initiative as-needed instead of constantly.

[Again, the key problem with cyclic initiative is the way it forces 50-80% of the players into inactivity when it's not "their turn," though there are other problems too like how it confuses people when they run scenarios involving surprise or hidden combatants. But the main problem is that cyclic initiative creates a notion of "turn" which is distinct from "round" and then forces players not to participate in other peoples' turns.]
Response:

Originally Posted by CapnZapp
Sorry, you've lost me. 

Let's take a quick example. Four heroes on a cart are ambushed by half a dozen goblins hiding behind some bushes up the road. Let's not focus on the ambush rules for this. I just would like you to explain how you run the combat. 

There are four PCs and six monsters. A very commonplace and ordinary combat, wouldn't you say?

I get that each player is asked to declare his action. But where does the time savings come in? Do you have each player resolve his action by himself, once you've determined that there are nothing stopping that action from happening?

And do you always assume a PC acts before the goblin (or goblins) that he's attacking and attacked by?

Or what?

(On second thought, perhaps it would be best if you replied in a new thread, but I leave that decision up to you)
Ambushes don't add much complexity, so let's leave the ambush part in there.

The basic rules I use are pretty simple: declare actions in order of Int (lowest to highest) to represent that quicker thinking gives you a shorter OODA loop; all turns occur simultaneously, but actions within a round/turn sometimes need to roll initiative to find out which one goes first; some actions (like Dodge, or maintaining a held action) are considered whole-round activities instead of events within a round, and so they automatically win initiative contests; you can delay your action until everyone else commits to an action, but that makes you automatically lose all initiative contests. (Essentially, you declare Delay as your action, and then you get to declare a new action after everyone else goes.)

So in this case, four heroes are on a cart, and the goblins have all rolled high stealth and won't be detected. The heroes are alert and won't be "surprised", but they do lose initiative automatically (as if they had all implicitly declared Delay, which is the default action).

DM: as you're riding along past a hill past a narrow spot in the road, six arrows suddenly arc in towards you. [Rolls dice] Vlad, you catch a glimpse of a goblin's grinning face in the bushes here right before his arrow hits you for 8 points of damage.

Vlad: can I Shield? 

DM: it's only a 14, and I think you would have been alert for possible trouble and aren't surprised, so okay, you Shield. Lose 2 spell points instead of 8 HP. Cranduin, you're hit once too for 4 points of damage; two other arrows clang off your armor. Jack, you got lucky--two arrows were aimed at you but they both missed. There's a brief rustling noise and you lose track of the goblins' whereabouts--they're somewhere within the brush but you're not sure where.

Eladriel (Shadow Monk): guys, let me check this out. I'm hopping out of the cart and making a sweep through the bushes.

Vlad: okay, we'll Delay until she checks it. [Cranduin and Jack nod assent]

DM: El, roll your Wisdom (Perception) check to see if you spot the goblins.

El: 9. [wince]

DM: You don't see anything.

Jack: I'm granting her Bardic Inspiration, and then I'm going to duck down too behind cover and Hide. [starts to roll dice--DM sees it and doesn't stop him because it doesn't look like anyone else is going to declare, and besides the goblins have already gone] 25!

Vlad: I'm going to stop the wagon and crouch down for partial cover behind the edge of the wagon, and Ready a Chill Touch for the first goblin that I see.

Cranduin: I'm going to hop out of the wagon too, to give Vlad some extra cover, and put on my shield and draw my longsword.

DM: Okay, you all do that. Next round. The goblins have all made their action decisions, but since you can't see them I'm not going to tell you what they are, though I suspect you can guess.

Vlad: still holding my Eldritch Blast.

El: Delay.

Cranduin: I'm going to Ready myself to charge over and attack the first goblin who shows his face.

DM: Okay, you'll be ready to attack the first goblin who breaks cover, as long as he is within your 30' movement range.

Jack: I'm still hidden for now, so I'll Delay.

DM: [rolls a handful of dice] Vlad! Three arrows aimed at you--does a 17 hit?

Vlad: Yes, but I'll Shield--oh, stink. I can't if I've already spent my reaction, can I?

DM: Nope. [consults dice, including initiative rolls] One arrow arcs in and misses you, and you blast him right back with Chill Touch. Roll please.

Vlad: 10, miss.

DM: Another arrow misses you, and then a third one, that 17, hits you right in the ribs for 6 points of damage.

Vlad: wait, I forgot about partial cover! My AC this round is 18, not 16!

DM: awesome for you! It hits the wagon right below your ribs.

Vlad: whew!

DM: all three of those goblins fade back into the bushes and you can't spot them any more. Cranduin, what's your initiative this round? The slowest of Vlad's three goblins had a 19 initiative and I doubt you can beat them.

Cranduin: [rolls] Uh, 3.

DM: ...well, I guess you're last. Three goblins also shoot arrows at Eladriel. El, there's one crit, which I assume you're going to try to catch [waits for confirming nod from her] for 11 points of damage minus your missile snatch, and then another 20 which also hits you I think, and then a clear miss.

El: [rolls] I block exactly 11 points of damage.

DM: Okay, you're hit once for 8 points of damage by the second arrow. Cranduin moves to intercept that goblin but he's too slow to hit it before it can try to hide again. However! One of the three that shot at you, the one that got the crit, rolls only a 12 on his Stealth check and you're able to see where he still is and point him out to Cranduin. Go for it, Cran!

Cranduin: [rolls] I got... a 9. Total. I miss.

DM: all right, that still leaves El and Jack with actions for this turn.

El: I attack that goblin, three times including Martial Arts. [rolls] One hit with my staff for 10 points of damage.

DM: And he goes down! Jack?

Jack: Can I very quietly grant inspiration to Cranduin without leaving my hiding place?

DM: Sure. You're like, [whispers furtively] "Fight! Fight! Fight! for the right!" [everyone laughs]

Jack: Okay, I do that.

DM: Okay, round three and you're still facing five goblins, as far as you know. They've got their actions ready but you don't know what they are, and... [etc.]

And that's basically how it works. As you can see, initiative is rolled relatively infrequently*, and the players are as fully-engaged with the game and each other as they would be in a social scene or other noncombat activity. Instead of spending 50-80% of their time sitting around doing nothing, not "allowed" to do anything because it's not "their turn," the players have the freedom to interact with each other and declare actions when they're ready to commit to something, or to wait for a better opportunity later by Delaying. You'll notice that one of the players (Jack's player) is apparently even still thinking more in roleplaying terms ("hide from the monsters!") than in terms of "optimal" tactics like readying attacks or making active perception rolls by Searching.

This style of play should be familiar to anyone who ever read the 2nd edition PHB, since it's almost exactly what AD&D used to use. The main difference is that AD&D didn't explicitly spell out the fact that sometimes initiative rolls don't matter and can be skipped, and it also didn't have the concept of Delaying. (I got the idea of Delay from fencing.)

-Hemlock/Max

* You can see that nothing would change no matter what order the initiative rolls came out in. The only time in the whole scenario when initiative matters is seeing whether Crandruin Readies an action in time to intercept one of the goblins before it can try to Hide again.


Read more: https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?513971-Simultaneous-initiative#ixzz4Uey0HvAn


--
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."

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Spell points by formula: 5E variant rule

[snip]

I have been using the DMG spell point system since the DMG first came out. I understand your issues with not liking tables, and frankly I don't see a big reason why you couldn't just interpolate a simple formula and use that instead. It's already a fairly linear progression. One formula that comes fairly close is: spell points = 4 * LEVEL ^ (1 + LEVEL/100), rounded to the nearest integer. At level 1 this gives you 4 spell points; at level 5 you have 22 spell points; at level 11 you have 57 spell points; and by level 20 you have 146. Those numbers are all reasonably close to the DMG numbers (4, 27, 73, 133) although somewhat underpowered at low levels--they don't quite catch up to the DMG numbers until level 16, except for an anomaly at level 2 and a smaller anomaly at level 4. But they do remain within 2 levels of DMG numbers at all times.

Spell points by level:
Level 1 (DMG) 4 (formula) 4
Level 2 (DMG) 6 (formula) 8
Level 3 (DMG) 14 (formula) 12
Level 4 (DMG) 17 (formula) 17
Level 5 (DMG) 27 (formula) 22
Level 6 (DMG) 32 (formula) 27
Level 7 (DMG) 38 (formula) 32
Level 8 (DMG) 44 (formula) 38
Level 9 (DMG) 57 (formula) 44
Level 10 (DMG) 64 (formula) 50
Level 11 (DMG) 73 (formula) 58
Level 12 (DMG) 73 (formula) 65
Level 13 (DMG) 83 (formula) 73
Level 14 (DMG) 83 (formula) 81
Level 15 (DMG) 94 (formula) 91
Level 16 (DMG) 94 (formula) 100
Level 17 (DMG) 107 (formula) 110
Level 18 (DMG) 114 (formula) 121
Level 19 (DMG) 123 (formula) 133
Level 20 (DMG) 133 (formula) 146

Furthermore, I doubt the missing spell points would be all that sorely missed, since spell points systems give greater flexibility and there is less pressure to conserve some of every type of slot. A regular PHB 9th level wizard with only a 3rd level slot and two 1st level slot remaining would be quite nervous; but a spell point wizard with 9 spell points left is likely is be relatively cool and collected because he can still utilize any of his memorized spells and still have power a 1st level spell like Shield or Expeditious Retreat for emergencies. If you gave me a choice between running a spell point wizard under this formula or a PHB spell slot wizard, I'd take spell points every time.

My opinions on the 6th+ level slot issue are mostly theorycraft, because I've only played characters at those level in one-shots. IMO the biggest impact of that rule is that it makes multiclassing more attractive; since you can't get multiple 6th+ slots per day anyway, and you already have plenty of spell points, you might as well consider investing two levels in Rogue or Fighter or Warlock or something somewhere along the line instead of sticking with pure spellcaster classes.

Aesthetically I don't like the 6th+ limitation because it prevents it from being a real spell point system; it's actually a hybrid spell slot/spell point system because you still have to keep track of slots 6, 7, 8, and 9. But I don't have an elegant solution either, because 5E does clearly intend to keep a lid on level 6+ spells in a way that it doesn't for spell levels 1-5. (E.g. Arcane Recovery doesn't work with them, Sorcerers can't create them from sorcery points, etc.) If you held a knife to my throat and made me come up with a solution now I would simply increase the cost exponentially after level 5 and drop the 1/day restriction: spells over level 7 cost (14 * 1.4^(LEVEL - 5)) spell points, rounded to the nearest number.

Level 6: 20 spell points
Level 7: 27 spell points
Level 8: 38 spell points
Level 9: 54 spell points

Only the mightiest wizards could ever dream of casting multiple high-level spells in a day, and doing so would drain them utterly. That seems like it would maintain the flavor of 6th+ level spells in 5E: they're rare and significant.


--
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, December 3, 2016

Optimization and Performance

Some good thoughts here: http://joeduffyblog.com/2010/09/06/the-premature-optimization-is-evil-myth/

I am personally used to writing code where 100 CPU cycles matters. So invoking a function that acquires a lock by way of a shared-memory interlocked instruction that may take 100 cycles is something I am apt to think hard about; even more worrisome is if that acquisition could block waiting for 100,000 cycles. Indeed this situation could become disastrous under load. As you can tell, I write a lot of systems code. If you're working on a network-intensive application, on the other hand, most of the code you write is going to be impervious to 100 cycle blips, and more sensitive to efficient network utilization, scalability, and end-to-end performance. And if you're writing a little one-time script, or some testing or debugging program, you may get away with ignoring performance altogether, even multi-million cycle network round-trips.

To be successful at this, you'll need to know what things cost. If you don't know what things cost, you're just flailing in the dark, hoping to get lucky. This includes rule of thumb order of magnitudes for primitive operations – e.g. reading / writing a register (nanoseconds, single-digit cycles), a cache hit (nanoseconds, tens of cycles), a cache miss to main memory (nanoseconds, hundreds of cycles), a disk access including page faults (micro- or milliseconds, millions of cycles), and a network roundtrip (milliseconds or seconds, many millions of cycles) – in addition to peering beneath opaque abstractions provided by other programmers, to understand their best, average, and worst case performance.

Clearly the concerns and situations you must work to avoid change quite substantially depending on the class of code you are writing, and whether the main function of your program is delivering a user experience (where usability reigns supreme), delivering server-side throughput, etc. Thinking this through is crucial, because it helps avoid true "premature optimization" traps where a programmer ends up writing complicated and convoluted code to save 10 cycles, when he or she really needs to be thinking about architecting the interaction with the network more thoughtfully to asynchronously overlap round-trips. Understanding how performance impacts the main function of your program drives all else.


--
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."

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Clemency abuse

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/bloodiest-medieval-war-fought-bucket.html

Here's one way to abuse clemency. 'To make his edict stick, the pope offered indulgences to anyone who successfully attacked Bonacolsi and/or his property. Indulgences were a guarantee that sins were either forgiven or lightened to the extent that one didn't have to burn in hell. Not even for the sin of murder.'

Tom Kratman, no dummy he, has previously observed in one of his SF novels (Caliphate, IIRC) that an (evil, psychotic, awful) President could use the Presidential pardoning power in just such a way. Spoiler alert: that Presidency doesn't turn out well for the U.S., but it turns out even worse for Iran.

--
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."

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Kipling

I love Kipling.


As I pass through my incarnations
In every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations
To the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers
I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings,
I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us.
They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us,
As Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift,
Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas
While we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed.
They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne
Like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress,
And presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield,
Or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on
They were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton;
They denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses;
They denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market
Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming,
They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons,
That the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us
And delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones
We were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour
And ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children
And the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch
We were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter
To pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money,
There was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled,
And their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled
And began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters,
And Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings
Limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future,
It was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain
Since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit
And the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger
Goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished,
And the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing
And no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us,
As surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
With terror and slaughter return!

--
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."

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

5E slings

Good house rules for slings here: http://ludusludorum.com/2016/05/12/a-defense-of-the-humble-sling/

--
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."

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

CO2 Into Ethanol

Argh. I'm not educated enough to know what the implications are for this process with "high Faradaic efficiency (63 % at −1.2 V vs RHE) and high selectivity (84 %) that operates in water and at ambient temperature and pressure".

On the one hand, I remember how thermal depolymerization (turkey guts into oil) didn't pan out. On the other hand, I remember that one reason WHY it didn't pan out was that it turned out to be more expensive than anticipated to get the turkey guts--they had hoped to get them for free, but it turns out that normally turkey guts are sold for animal feed, and when the oil-makers had to pay for it, that cut into their profit margins. Plus, they had some early problems with odor that gave them PR issues. Neither of these would be expected to be an issue with ethanol-from-CO2, although I imagine that producing sufficient concentrations of CO2 to make the process work could be an engineering challenge. Also, "ambient temperature and pressure" seems like a big deal to me and very good news.

Overall I'm cautiously optimistic. Using nuclear power to turn CO2 into ethanol seems like a win-win-win scenario--although you'd obviously have to compare it to the competing scenario of using nuclear power to turn water into hydrogen for fuel cells, since both scenarios are really just ways of distributing energy. But I assume the PR for CO2-into-ethanol would be much better, which could make things politically easier.

I don't think this is a silver bullet. I doubt that more than 20% of the world's auto fuel will be produced via this method even twenty years from now--I expect we'll still be pumping most of our fuel out of the ground. But it will be great if this is a mature technology at that point which is proven to work reliably and economically.

Pop-sci article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/ 
Link to actual paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/full

-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."

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Sentiment

I like it when girls don't do the "boyfriend" thing and boys don't do the "girlfriend" thing. I appreciate people who have the foresight and moral courage to do "do, or not not" as Yoda would say; "there is no try." As near as I can tell, you don't lose out on anything important by just doing things the same way that Anne Shirley and Gilbert Blythe did, to name one example*: be friends, get to know each other, be frank about your (hopefully-mutual) admiration, and make commitments when you're ready to actually commit. But there's no reason to make a temporary semi-commitment ("boyfriend") right there in the middle.

Whenever I find out that someone else thinks that way too, it cheers me up inside. Maybe I'm crazy, but at least I'm not crazy AND alone.

* Other examples: Garion and Ce'Nedra, Peter Joshua (Brian Crookshanks) and Regina Lampert, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet, Apodictic Blue and Yellow Amusement.

--
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, October 8, 2016

Insight

I realized today why it is that I'm so allergic to exercising leadership and telling people to follow my lead. I mean, I can step up and get things done when no one else is doing it, but it makes me uncomfortable and today I realized why:

It's because fundamentally, I'm a teacher at heart, not a leader. If I'm telling you what to do, then that means I'm depriving you of the chance to learn how to lead yourself, and I'm failing as a teacher. Instead of saying, "Go that way and do this," I want to say, "Well, here are some of your options and the likely consequences of each. Which one are you going to choose?"

My goal is never to collect minions. I am only comfortable wanting to bring people up to my level; I want to make them my peers.

--
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."

Thursday, October 6, 2016

5E Sorcerer Archetype: Instinctual

Instinctual Sorcerer

You are an instinctive magic-user. Magical effects "just work" for you, as easily as your muscles work to move your body around. You may not even be aware what's happening--perhaps you found a lucky feather which, you think, turns you invisible when you wear it, until one day you lose the feather and realize the power was within you all along. Or perhaps you are like Spider Man or the X-Men, shooting energy blasts from your hands like a mutant power. Whatever it is, your magic is deeply a part of you in a way that most people could never understand.

[Instinctive Casting] Starting at first level, you have no need for verbal, somatic, or material components when casting your sorcerer spells.

[Made of Magic] Starting at sixth level, you can use your physical reserves to fuel your magic. When you are in your own body and form, you can convert HP to sorcery points as a bonus action on a 1:1 basis. Your HP maximum is reduced by the same amount. Once reduced, your HP maximum cannot be restored by any means except rest. You regain points equal to your Charisma modifier (with a minimum of +1) each time you complete a long rest.

[Magic Eater] Starting at fourteenth level, you can absorb hostile magic and turn it to your own ends. When a spell is cast that targets only you, you can use your reaction to absorb the spell, nullifying its effects and giving you as many sorcery points as the spell's level. If this would take you above your sorcery point maximum, lose the extra points and suffer the effects of a Feeblemind spell, DC 10 + (level of the absorbed spell).

[Magical Virtuoso] Starting at eighteenth level, your magical coordination improves. Like a musician playing two different instruments at once, once per short rest you can cast a sorcerer spell that requires concentration without losing concentration on another sorcerer spell that you are already concentrating on. If you lose concentration following that point, both spells end.

--
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."

Dazzlingly clever or angelically good?

An attractive personality is better than a pretty face. And a beautiful character is better than an attractive personality.

I dig girls who are courageous, kind, generous, honorable, and valiant. If they are clever and funny too, that's strictly a bonus.

--
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."

Monday, September 26, 2016

Serpents and symbols

This article about serpents (messengers of the gods, some false, some true) may interest you. I thought I originally read about it in the Ensign but right now I can only find a BYU publication by Andrew Skinner on the topic.

If serpents can represent either a true Messiah or a false Messiah, that also lends an additional pleasing symbolic message to the way Moses' stick-cum-serpent ate the magicians' sticks-cum-serpents.

-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."

Monday, September 12, 2016

Evolution

I'm very interested in evolution and abiogenesis. I believe that it happened. I don't see a lot of evidence that humans understand HOW.

Anyway, Fred is often interesting and sometimes cogent. Here's Fred with an interesting observation on standards of evidence:

'Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way. Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.

'As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean, I think, that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.'

http://www.unz.com/freed/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/

They say you can't get a PhD unless you have a burning question that you want to answer. Well, here's mine: WHAT MAKES IT WORK?!? How do you pose a machine-learning (parallel hill-climbing) question such that "complex multicellular ecologies" is the answer, as opposed to say "networks of self-replicating simple crystals"? Someday when I retire, I'll make that my PhD question and pursue a doctorate.

--
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 3, 2016

Partnership

Dear Y.A.,

This is a good husband. Remind me of this story some day.

Just this winter, I woke up one morning after a week-long battle with a particularly harsh bout of depression. I didn't want to get up. I looked out the window and noted that it had snowed: this was even worse. We were supposed to get up and go to church that day. The thought of even trying, of making what seemed like the Herculean effort to get out of bed, get everyone ready, be there, be pleasant, be social, just be at all, nearly crushed me. I told my husband, "I can't do it. I just can't today. Not today." My husband, who is kind and gentle and wise, and who I know just wanted to scoop me up and tell me that it was okay and to stay home, instead sagely said, "I know you don't want to go, and I know it is hard. But you can choose to go. And choosing to go is the right choice. Because if you choose not to go this one time, it will make it so much easier to choose not to go next time." And he was right. I was mad at him: I wanted him to give me an excuse to stay home, to wallow, to curl into myself in my bed and just not have to do this whole life thing for one day. But, he loves me enough to keep encouraging me to choose the light, even when it looks so dark.

And you, J.--thanks for being a good friend.

~B.C.

--
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."

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Francis Scott Key (biographical details)

There's been some talk lately of the Star Spangled Banner and its author. This article, for instance, says that 'Key himself owned slaves, was an anti-abolitionist and once called his African brethren "a distinct and inferior race of people"' before going on to repeat claims that when Key wrote the third verse of the Star Spangled Banner ("No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave"), Francis Scott Key "was in fact taking pleasure in the deaths of freed black slaves who had decided to fight with the British against the United States."

I clicked on one of the links in the article, the one for "a distinct and inferior" race of people, and learned some interesting things. He wasn't all good, but he wasn't all bad either. Unsurprisingly, he was a man of the times he lived in, and it sounds like he was a pretty good one in many ways. Not in all ways, certainly, but a better man than you'd think if all you knew about him was that he was an "anti-abolitionist" who had owned slaves. Anyway, here's an excerpt from the link, Snow-Storm in August by Jefferson Morley:

Key prided himself as a humanitarian and as a young lawyer relished defending individual colored people in court. Some even called him "the Blacks' lawyer." At the same time, Key shared a general view of the free people of color as shiftless and untrustworthy: a nuisance, if not a menace, to white people. He spoke publicly of Africans in America as "a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community." He nurtured a vision, expressed in deed (though not song), in which African colonization would solve the problem of the free blacks by helping them emigrate to Liberia. Key had worked ceaselessly and ineffectively on behalf of this dream for more than twenty years. He was, as one biographer admitted, a distressingly serious man.

Humanitarian ambition drove him. In his younger days, Key often left Polly and their growing brood to travel throughout the mid-Atlantic promoting the establishment of what were known as Lancaster schools, institutions of learning open to all white children, which evolved into the region's first public schools. He attended the annual General Convention of the Episcopal Church, where he denounced popular amusements like gambling. While some of his coreligionists chafed at his harsh pronouncements, none doubted his piety. Said his friend John Randolph, the brilliant and eccentric Virginia Senator, "His whole life is spent in endeavors that do good for his unhappy fellow-men." Randolph, an iconoclastic bachelor fond of opium and poetry, admired Key's benevolence but did not entirely trust it.

In his relations with enslaved people, Key was decent by the standards of the day. He had grown up on his family's plantation in the hills of northern Maryland surrounded by slaves and an ethic of service. His mother read the Bible to the blacks in residence. Family lore held that his grandmother had been blinded by smoke while rescuing a black family from a fire. Key abhorred the mistreatment of bondsmen and the sundering of families by slave dealers. A prim man, he was incapable of brutality. Condescension came more easily. During his lifetime, Key freed seven of his slaves. He said that all but one of them--whom he did not identify--had thrived in freedom. But in general, Key expressed disappointment at the results of his efforts on behalf of colored people. "I have been thus instrumental in liberating several large families and many individuals," he told a contemporary. "I cannot remember more than two instances, out of this large number, in which it did not appear that the freedom so earnestly sought for them was their ruin." Key concluded Negroes could not handle the responsibilities of liberty in America. When they moved back to Africa, the United States would then be free of slaves (and former slaves) and could thus fulfill its destiny as a "land of the free" for white people. 

~Maximilian

--
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."

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Freedom of Agency

"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward." D&C 58:28

"And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet." D&C 29:39

"And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment." Moses 6:56

"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves." D&C 104:17

The scriptures say that we are agents unto ourselves, with the freedom to choose good or evil. The most grammatically and doctrinally accurate term to describe the privilege that we have is not "free agency" (ungrammatical and misleading to some people) nor "moral agency" (doctrinally incomplete, omits to mention what kind of moral agency we have) but rather "freedom of agency."

We are *free* agents. We have the privilege of choosing with whom to align ourselves, whether God, man, or the devil. And if we choose God, our Father, and follow in the footsteps of His Son and strive to keep all of his commandments out of love for Him, we shall inherit His kingdom and one day become like Him, through the Atonement of Christ. And anyone who does not admire God or love His law can choose to do something else, and He will regretfully allow it.

That is what freedom of agency is about.

~B.C.

--
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, August 19, 2016

Book of Mormon hypothetical

If you were trying to pass the Book of Mormon off as a work of fiction by a 19th-century American fantasist, I would look at it and say, "Nice try. But your attempts to mimic contemporary 19th-century racial attitudes are too superfical and ham-handed to be believable. Sure, you have a superficial references to 'skin of blackness' as a curse, but then you slipped up--there is no discernible stigma against miscegenation with these supposedly 'loathsome' people. Amalickiah, Lamoni, and Amulon and all his followers all contemplate miscegenation with no qualms, and the purported narrator Mormon says not a word disparaging it. Your characters' racism is too shallow to be believably antebellum."

Also I would add, "Your attitudes toward monarchy are way too positive too. Your characters may object, but it's on purely pragmatic grounds, while speaking positively of the theoretical virtues of a good king. This is anachronistic for a book which was purportedly written in 1830, in New England no less, with memories of British misrule still vivid."

"It's an obvious fraud," I would say.

~Max Wilson, August 12, 2012


--
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."

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

A Chorus Line: The Sequel

A Chorus Line: The Sequel. Only it's so real.

Michael Blevins (who plays Mark): "I got to do a McDLT commercial and assistant choreographed 'How to Be a Man' (a kid TV show starring Capt. Kangaroo and Melba Moore). I'm being considered for a Broadway show, but in this business you can't really get excited about anything until it's signed on paper."

Yamil Borges (Morales): "It's very ironic. Here I am with my first major motion picture and I haven't worked since April."

Jan Gan Boyd (Connie): "After the film, I took more acting lessons and starred with Robert Ito and Paul Winfield in an hourlong after-school drama called 'War Between the Classes.' I'm up for three films but . . . you never know."

Cameron English (Paul): "I'm waiting for some meaningful part to come along. Meanwhile, my friend and I are developing a line of hand-painted greeting cards."

Tony Fields (Al): "After completing seven months of intense work filming 'Chorus Line,' I returned to L.A. and hit a severe 'post-partum psychosis,' so to speak. I spent the last year getting a good handle on my life. Now I'm ready for anything."

Nicole Fosse (Kristine): "I danced on Michael Blevins' 'How to Be a Man,' and . . . you know, a little of this and a little of that. Mostly I'm just taking it one step at a time."

Vicki Frederick (Sheila): "Just finished a film, 'Stewardess School.' But right now I'm being a mom for my daughter Amanda. There's nothing definite in the future."

Michelle Johnston (Bebe): "After the film, I assisted choreographer Jeffrey Hornaday on the Disney 3-D film 'Captain Eo,' starring Michael Jackson. I can't honestly say that dancing pays my rent because I live with my parents at Hermosa Beach."

Janet Jones (Judy): "I just finished filming 'American Anthem' with Olympic gold medalist Mitch Gaylord (she co-stars as his love interest). It was very strenuous. I'm taking a break, then a vacation. There are some things in the works but nothing definite."

Pam Klinger (Maggie): "After the shooting, I came to L.A. for a couple of months to try my luck. Now I'm back with the Broadway company doing Maggie again, but I'm still trying to get some film or TV work going in L.A."

Audrey Landers (Val): "My newest album, 'Paradise Generation,' went platinum overseas so I'm continuing with my European concert tours. My sister Judy and I are doing an album that I'm producing and my film 'Texas Heat' comes out next March."

Terrence Mann (Larry): "I went from 'Chorus Line' to 'Cats' to a space/horror film called 'Critters' to a space/roller-skate thing called 'Solar Babies.' I can't complain, because I'm an actor and I'm getting by on my acting."

Charles McGowan (Mike): "I've been looking at a couple of scripts. The best one is Tony Bill's project 'Five Corners.' If I get it, I'll play a villain. Meanwhile, I hope to do some commercials."

Alyson Reed (Cassie): "I did a Japanese commercial, took a long-overdue break, turned down some Broadway shows and refused two scripts. I'd love to work but I'm waiting for the right project."

Justin Ross (Greg): "I'm in the process of adapting my club act into an Off-Broadway piece. Meanwhile, I'm hoping for the best, taking my vitamins, have stopped smoking and am eating well."

Blane Savage (Don): "I appeared in a Toyota industrial film, toured with singer Lynda Carter's revue, am up for some pilots and will accept a good role if you have one for me. Call. . . ."

Matt West (Bobby): "I've been pondering my destiny while working on my house in Connecticut."

Gregg Burge (Richie): Unavailable for comment. He's in the new Broadway hit "Song and Dance."

So poignant. It's like they were actually playing themselves the whole time.

-B.C.

--
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."

Monday, August 8, 2016

Voting fraud

This seems like an important example:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438754/james-okeefe-voter-fraud-videos-prove-voter-ID-laws-needed

Dickerson, the anti-voter ID columnist for the Detroit Free Press, ignored the O'Keefe videos that showed the filmmaker being offered ballots. O'Keefe's investigation, Dickerson said, was nothing more than a "social-media circus." He concluded that "although [O'Keefe] and others have been advocating for tougher voter-I.D. laws for years on the grounds that fraud is rampant, none has identified a single instance in which a U.S. election turned on counterfeit votes." But there certainly are examples of elections being overturned for reasons of fraud, including mayoral elections in Miami and East Chicago, Ind.

We've also seen clear evidence of fraud in more important races. In 2008, illegal felon voters appear to have swung the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election. The day after the election, GOP senator Norm Coleman had a 725-vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312-vote victory. The outcome had a significant impact because it gave Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of Obamacare in the Senate.

After Franken was sworn in, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority looked into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken–Coleman race. Prosecutors were ultimately able to convict only those who were dumb enough to admit they had knowingly broken the law, but that added up to 177 fraudulent voters. Nine out of ten suspect felon voters contacted by a Minneapolis TV station said they had voted for Franken. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Al Franken victory results. It's noteworthy that evidence of fraud and irregularities in Minnesota had to be gathered by a private group. The fact is that prosecutions for voter fraud are rare in part because the crime is so hard to catch, the level of proof required is high, the priority in filing such cases is low, and district attorneys are reluctant to pursue cases that will anger half of the ruling political class.

-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."