What makes a good decision?

I think this a good example of what close to two million people like to read daily. It makes you feel good, feel like there is an order to the things that you do and that if you prepare a PowerPoint presentation with the right animations illustrating these principles then your boss is going to tap you in the shoulder, good job!

But are people not able to think anymore on their own? 
Can anyone stand up anymore and say, no, this is not right, it does not make sense? 
Maybe it is better to just sit in the back of the room, sipping coffee from a mug with an inspirational quote and wait until 5pm of Friday because this weekend there is the game!

Based on followers numbers, it appears that these days workers seem to think only by slogans, heart warming quotes based on words play, and the "inspirational" automatic reply on LinkedIn and not that they would ever want to argue with me, (why spend some of my time with someone who does not have any followers?), but for the sake of the argument let's apply the proposed decision making process to problem of getting married. Let's follow the steps and the reader be advised that I am actually happily married (love you honey! ❤️):

1. Define the problem:  well, I want to get married!
Defining the problem in this way implies that 

    (a) this is a problem (ok, well at least for me now this is a problem) and 

    (b) there is a solution to this problem, i.e., that there is another individual that want to solve the same problem with me. 

But, oh, wait. Why just one individual? Perhaps a polygamic solution would be a better option, after all those who have agreed to that compact have found already a solution and they can be qualified therefore as experts. Experts do know better after all. Oh my head is spinning and I am questioning myself already if this is the right formulation of the problem. And worse, I have been trying to think logically, but that is only at step 5, I cannot do that at this stage!

2. Find Options: yes, options are good, I can only choose and therefore exercise my freedom only when I have options, else I would not be free and may need to enter into a pre-arranged marriage. Oh dear, I need to go back to step 1, I had not considered a pre-arranged marriage. Perhaps this is the solution already, maybe I am going to be lucky, and anyways the experts that have arranged this marriage know it better, they are experts after all! 
But I like options, where do I get them. Mhmm, I know Sarah, and Liz, and what was her name again? I need to evaluate fully my options: I am going to ask Sarah for a date, and Liz for a date and if I find her number I will ask (darn it, what was her name?) also for a date. Should I ask Sarah first, or perhaps Liz? and the third lady was certainly Sarah's friend, so I can ask Sarah for her name and number. 

3 Collect Data Maybe, I can invite the three of them on the same date so that I can make an unbiased experiment that does not depend on the order on which the dates were defined. Maybe if explain them my intent very well at step 1 they will understand and they will allow me multiple experiments, and counterfactuals. I will collect all the data that I can get from their social profiles, plus estimate measure of their body types, your know brassier size and all that good stuff, and don't forget the age, yes, especially the age of a woman is very important, and medical history. I will create a good data set so that I can run some machine learning models, there are so many open source models on github to choose from and see what they get me as an answer.

4. Evaluate the impact Before I pop the question, though, I need to carefully evaluate the impact, especially on my finances, maybe I should put in some expenses for a marital counselor, and the lawyers, ... ah yes, I forgot to evaluate the impact of a divorce. And not only on me, if we have children, yeah another consequence that I did not consider on step 3. I need to go back there and reconsider the machine learning models. But wait, I cannot go back to step 3, because that it is not in the flowchart on how to make a good decision. Maybe I did not use enough logic on step 3, but that was not contemplated in the flowchart, it is only required at step 5! Oh well, I have to trust the process!

5. Think Logically. oh, now you tell me to think logically? Think logically about what? I have already decided the problem, the data, and the method, what is that I need to think logically now?

6. Take Action. The most accurate seemed to be a semi-supervised deep neural network. I ran it on a AWS Kubernetes cluster with GPUs, and the results were clear. Sarah 99.8%, Liz 99.7%, and what's her name only 99.1%. I just popped the question to Sarah over email, and if she says yes I will announce our engagement on X, formerly known as Twitter. Oh, wait, she just answered, I am so excited!! ... what the F? ... she just sent me to hell? How is that even possible? I have followed the process on how to make a good decision to the letter, and could I have possibly gone wrong? I am confused .. let me take a look at what is on step 7? Define the problem? but I just did!! Oh well, I need to trust the process after all making a good decision is just doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different answers, am I right?

_______________________________________________

As Author Nassim Nicholas Taleb aptly put it, "lecturing birds how to fly"

Scientific articles and weasel words

So that I cannot be accused of weasely appropriating images on the internet, you could potentially consider buying this

Take this Science Alert article: Quantum Batteries Could Provide a New Kind of Energy Storage by Messing With Time. This is a prime example of readings that have the only effect of turning me off.

The `could,` `would,` `mays,` `potentially,` and `in principle` do not belong to the scientific parlance.

But this is OK, one might object; this is not the science; it is just pop science!

And yet, digging deeper into the actual hard-science articles, one finds the exact weasel words and, mind you, not under a dedicated `Speculations` header, but throughout Methods, Materials, and Conclusions. This is unacceptable and a huge issue that serious (ahah) Journal Editors should crack down upon.

I want to share an interesting opinion article that illustrates my point more eloquently than I could ever do: Hedging, Weasel Words, and Truthiness in Scientific Writing, by Dr. D.E. Ott.

By the way, it is OK to speculate. Had we never had Jules Verne write on getting to the moon, we would have probably never planted a flag (ahi, more speculation!). Imagination (as individuals and as a society) is progress's most potent driving force. I cheer anyone with the bravery and moral fortitude to move the goalpost farther than anyone else could reach.

But I decry in the strongest terms any attempts at swaying economic interests. under the pretenses of potential science.

Let's go back to real accountability.

Do you, the researcher, or their scientific institution have a speculation you would like to propose? OK, put your reputation (your only real currency) on the line and tell us about timelines, stepping stones, investments, risks, and mitigations. We will believe you because we, as a society, will hold you accountable to those. If your predictions hold water, we will give you more research money.

But if your predictions are just vague speculations based on weasel words and aggressive PR push, good luck!

Funny Countries Facts

        Funny Countries Facts

Which country has the highest reverse immigration?  

Isbackistan

Which country has the most banks?                           

Cheque Republic

Which country has the fastest people?                       

Rusha

Which country has the highest rate of skeptics?             

Noway

Which country has the most relaxed citizens?                

Slowakia

Which country has the highest rate of stomach reflux?       

Belchium

Which country has the strongest soccer team?                

MonGOOOLia

Which country has the most electric guitar players? 

Morerocko

Which country has the fanciests fast food restaurants?

Luxenburger

Which country has the most classically trained musicians?

Mozartbique 

Which country has the most percussionists?

the Democratic Republic of Bongo

Which country has the most off-road vehicles?

Ejeept

Which country has the least number of food banks?

Hungry

Which is the most fragile country?

China

Where do John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John live?

Greace

Which is the most infected nation?

Germ-many

Which country has the most diabetic patients?

Sweeten 

Which has the most sheep?

The Baahaamaas

Which is the country with the fewest dissidents?

Yesmen

The country with the most marathon athletes?

Iran

The country with the least traffic issues? 

Parkistan

Which country has the largest number of black birds?

Crowatia

The country with the most singers?

Singamore

Which country has the strongest opposition movement?

Nopal

Which country has the worst traffic?

Honk-Kong

Which country has the most rocky terrain?

Stonia

CNN = Certainly Not News

I find it absolutely disgusting how the media outlets are treating the case of Edward Snowden. In this post I would like to focus on what I saw on the CNN website this morning. Take the CNN trends bar on their home page, how important do you think is the "NSA leaker" case?

Yet, when you click on the CNN trends page itself, all of a sudden it appears as the item number 3

Now read the incipit of the CNN article, "(CNN) -- European officials reacted with fury Sunday after a report that the U.S. National Security Agency spied on EU offices."

On Sunday???? I do not think so! The news , with all Schulz's declarations, was already news on Saturday morning (US time of course) on all the European newspapers ... but of course you could not find on CNN or elsewhere in the US mainstream media.

Of course, this is not just about the CNN, but all the mainstream USA media outlets, including NPR that, as of the time of writing, has not reported yet this news.

Now, is it so unplausible that all this stirring about gay marriage is not an elaborate cover-up for covering up the patently unconstitutional character of the actions of this and the past administrations towards the privacy of world citizens?

Solar Eclipse

Some backyard pictures of the shadows generated by the Solar Eclipse 2012 in California.

Free Exercise Clause

In defense of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

... but the Obama administration just imposed a Trojan horse that, with the excuse of providing health care for all, forces employers to provide medical insurance for abortion and contraception, regardless of the moral beliefs. I did believe in Obama's promise of providing health care for all. Only now I understand what Chesterton meant when he said:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.

Gilbert K. Chesterton, The Suicide of Thought, Orthodoxy.

Another Cubicle Wall

Daddy's flown across the ocean

Leaving just a memory

Snapshot in the family album

Daddy what else did you leave for me?

Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!?

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!"

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the Division

Don leave them kids alone

Hey! Don! Leave them kids alone!

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"

"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

I don't need no pals around me

And I don't need no drugs to calm me.

I have seen the writing on the wall.

Don't think I need anything at all.

No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.