Chaos3612 - Chaotic Dynamics

little hideout

instagram | shop | commission info

Voyager’s Jupiter and Io

This is a video of an Oksapmin woman demonstrating the Oksapmin base-27 counting system. The Oksapmin people of New Guinea use body part counting as a base for their numeral system (which may sound wild and exotic, but is really just a more detailed version of what we do, most anthropologists think base-10 number systems come from humans’ having 10 fingers) starting with the thumb, going up the arm and head to the nose (the 14th number) and going down the other side of the body to the pinky finger of the other hand (the 27th number). It does not matter which side you start counting on, so counting from right-to-left or left-to-right makes no difference. 

And if that’s not the coolest thing you’ve ever heard, I don’t know what to tell ya

What’s Your favorite space object?

Orbital path of asteroid near miss in 2002. Yah, that’s how close we came to nuclear winter and possible total destruction.

I’m gonna depress the hell out of all of you. ready? ok go

so, that “stop devaluing feminized work post”

nice idea and all

but the thing is, as soon as a decent number of women enter any field, it becomes “feminized,” and it becomes devalued.

as women enter a field in greater number, people become less willing to pay for it, the respect for it drops, and it’s seen as less of a big deal. it’s not about the job- it’s about the number of women in the job.

observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field. so has happened with scores of other areas; nursing comes to mind

so the thing is, it’s not the work or the job that has to be uplifted and seen as more respectable. it will never work out, until people start seeing women as respectable

but there’s a doozy and who the fuck knows if it’s ever happening in my life time

Joi Ito:

“What I realized was that a lot of the engineers who work in AI felt that you could reduce the whole world to a function.

That life, human life, was just optimizing. And that the world could be simulated in a computer.

This is almost religious because I think that there are people who have the kind of thinking where they look at their life as a game.

Where they say: “Okay. I’m optimizing for money, and how many minutes do I have to do this.”

I tweeted out the other day: “Those people who think that we live in a computer simulation are the kinds of people who are most likely to be simulations.”

A lot of people approach life like an engineering problem. For them, I could imagine that they could see their whole life being in a computer.

But if you go into the humanities or the East Coast, there are a lot of people who don’t think like a computer.

They live life through experience and only things that happen actually matter. (…)

A lot of the papers that you see by the engineers say: “We’ll just define fairness as accuracy,” or something like that.

And this is what I call reductionist, because fairness is really complex, and it’s always contextual.

My concern is the stuff that we have, which is efficiency, productivity — that’s the stuff that makes us obese, creates climate change, income inequality.

The problems that we have today are caused by the tools that we created.

But I think there’s a lot of people who believe that more efficiency and productivity will fix everything.

I think right now there’s a lot of power in the hands of the reductionists.

And I would put economists and neoclassic economics in this, which is just reducing everything to just measuring GDP. (…)

If you go to places like MIT, the engineers have all the power, all the money, and everything looks like an engineering problem. 

And we’ve made liberal arts sort of this sideshow. 

I think that we need the historians, social scientists, anthropologists, qualitative people involved in asking the questions: why are we here, what are we doing?”

Source: Recode Decode — MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito on the problem with tech people who want to solve problems