Random Chat Connects

Perhaps my largest problem with IM is the inability to know who you're talking to without some other form of either authentication or identity confirmation.

For instance, this afternoon two people contacted me on IM who refused to give their real name (one was posing as Hillary Clinton . . . ) or a legitimate reason contacting me (not an exclusive or). It's just common courtesy to provide one or the other. Anyone who doesn't do one or the other I block out of hand.

My best advice: get in touch via another method first, then if warranted go for chat. For instance, I am on the Ubuntu Forums and have my IM's up. If you want to IM me to ask an Ubuntu question, please PM me through the forums first with an explanation of why and the nick you'll use to contact me so when you IM me I know not to kick you out of hand.

Exponential Distributions and Tag Clouds

I just noticed this and I have to wonder if it's a common thing or not: When looking at the number of posts with a given tag on my tag list, it has a vaguely exponential distribution. Discrete, of course, but it has that same downward slope and everything when the tags are ordered by number of posts. I wonder if the histogram of number of tags with a given post count is Poisson?

I may just take the current counts of this page, run them through R, and post the results. It would be really cool if lots of other people did this and posted the results below or emailed theirs to me for inclusion.

I wonder if it says anything about human behavior? Do we tend to clump most things into the same few bins and have lots of smaller ones?

LaTeX in a WYSIWYG World

Most of the non-mathematically-inclined people I know don't use LaTeX and probably never would even if paid. I've even had people say with the advent of point-and-click formula editors for MS Word, there's no point in bothering with it anymore anyway.

Yet I can't shake the sneaking suspicion LaTeX is still better. Maybe it's just elitism from knowing a system most would find esoteric at best and downright weird at worst (outside of mathematics and related fields, of course).

But I still snicker at the thought of sending my humanities profs .tex files when asking them to review a draft of a paper, or using beamer to give a presentation.

Haiku

I've decided one thing to do before I die is learn and practice the art of Haiku.

Why Haiku? Three reasons. Those are the challenge, the experience, and the convenience.

As self expression goes, a single thought into 17 syllables is fairly trivial, craming it into exactly 17 is non-trivial, and doing it well is very challenging. Mix with my own semi-perfectionist nature, and this gets interesting fast. Example: "W.T.F" is a complete thought, but how would you express the same thing in 17 syllables?

I can't explain it, but there's something about the experience of Haiku which is simply amazing from start to finish. The setup, the suspense, the contrast . . . it's just awesome to finally look at even a decent haiku (much less a good one) and simply enjoy the way it works on me.

Third, poetry takes lots of itterations before it's anywhere near good. Haiku's being as short as they are, the cyclic rate for a complete set of revisions is high (even if the number of revisions is longer). This is more compatible with my lifestyle as I much more frequently have 15 minutes (which can be enough to ponder a single word choice) here and there than the hours it would take to consider the implications of a single work or comma on a larger poem.

Axiomatization

Axiomatization, or development of a set of ideas from first principles, is certainly a popular technique in mathematics and to some extent in areas like physics, etc. The irony is that across my humanities classes, few want it in any of them, even philosophy.

It is true some fields of endeavor don't lend themselves to it particularly well (the study of natural languages comes to mind--most languages have rules but they also have exceptions, etc). On the other hand, an axiom by definition is something which is true by assertion and so whenever something is simply asserted as true, that is an axiom. At the same time, whenever one says "these are the conclusions desired", it automatically forces them to build an argument in support of them with certain premises which in term have premises and sooner or later one hits axioms. The difference is merely they are enumerated last.

Meaningful discourse can certainly be had without explicit axiomatization, but axioms are the logical foundation of discourse (along with a specified system of logic which is itself axiomatic). Thus to fully understand the other and the foundation of their argument, one must understand--at least implicitly--their axioms.

Telling People I Brew Beer

"I brew beer. "

Those three little words have probably started more non-geeky conversations than any other statement I know. This is really cool, because as you have probably already noticed, I can be pretty geeky.

Interestingly, I usually get one or both of the following reactions: (a) Oh cool! How does that work? or (b) Oh cool! I or some person I know brews/brewed beer.

When someone has brewed before, the conversation quickly turns to best practices, recipies, and fond memories of good or bad batches. On the other hand, when someone has never brewed before, it's more of a toss-up.

One thing is for sure: everyone who drinks beer wants to know how it tastes.