An observation

I work best when I am neither depressed nor anxious.

I work quickest when I am anxious, but not depressed.

I have my best ideas when I am depressed, but not anxious.

When I am both anxious and depressed, I am useless.

Prediction

HTC has just launched their first Android-based phone, the HTC Dream, in Australia. However, they’ve also recently announced the HTC Magic — what many will no doubt see as the successor to the Dream — in other markets. Allow me to offer a grim and admittedly entirely baseless prediction of the events to follow:

1. Some Australians buy the Dream, but not as many as HTC had hoped. The real cause of this shortfall will be that most people interested enough to even know what an Android-based phone is will have already heard of the Magic, and be eager to get their hands on that — not the Dream.
2. HTC interprets this as a general lack of interest from the Australian market in the Android platform.
3. HTC therefore slightly scales back its operations here, and delays the Australian release of the Magic. Sufficient interest has not yet spread to Australia, they will think.
4. I have to wait even longer for my Magic.

With so many reminders of the absurd predictions large corporations can make about a market (The Fox Broadcasting Company continually axing winners, BBC Worldwide somehow thinking that Top Gear Australia was a good idea, Microsoft’s certainty that Vista would be well-received, etc.), how could I not be pessimistic?

Please, HTC, prove me wrong.

Zombies

I couldn’t resist. Apparently I find myself in a mall at the precise moment the zombie legions choose(?) to launch their all-out assault on humanity. I have:

1. one weapon;
2. one song blasting on the speakers; and
3. one famous person to fight alongside me.

Too easy:

1. ‘68 Les Paul;
2. Living Dead Girl (when that finishes, anything else Rob Zombie); and
3. Natalie Portman.

Seriously — picture her, in all her shaved-headed glory, swinging away with a Gibson. Do it. Now.

Yeah, that’s right.

Not your usual graffiti

Seen near my place:

Racial tolerance

Quick question: can anyone tell me why there are over seventy thousand hits for “racial tolerance” on Google? Racial tolerance is a non-concept — or rather, it should be.

“Cultural tolerance” might be more sensible, because many cultures contradict one another. How many hits for that? About thirty thousand fewer. How about “religious tolerance”? Over a million hits. That one makes sense, given that religion seems to be a, if not the major point of contention between cultures.

But “racial tolerance”? Whilst I’ve always thought it was a stupid, condescending idea, I had no idea it was so widespread! The very concept implies there is something wrong with the race or races in question — something offensive that needs to be tolerated. It seems even more ridiculous when this set includes all races other than ones own.

Ok, so there are some people who actually believe in the ultimate superiority of their own race, but they’re usually held in the lowest of regards wherever they’re found. I’d be willing to bet that most people who describe themselves as racially tolerant actually mean something entirely different.

So if racial tolerance is out, how should we describe a general distaste for racism? Well, it might not be a perfect fit, but “racial apathy” works for me — because it doesn’t affect me if you’re black, white, yellow, green, or some kind of exotic polka dot hybrid of the four; I really couldn’t care less. I guess I can only hope the feeling (or lack thereof) is mutual!

¬x(y)≢x(¬y)… damnit!

Say what? Ok, if that didn’t mean anything to you (or didn’t render properly in your ancient browser), don’t panic! I just wrote it like that because it’s the fastest way to get to the point. Allow me to elaborate (in English) with an example.

1. Let y be some statement. For example, “aliens exist”.
2. Now let x be some function of y. For example, “I believe that y”.
3. From 1 and 2, we can see that in our example x(y) means “I believe that aliens exist”.
4. Consider a couple of slightly more complex statements using the symbol ¬ to mean “not”:
   1. ¬x(y) now means “I do not believe that aliens exist”; and
   2. x(¬y) means “I believe that aliens do not exist”.
5. i and ii are clearly different statements; the former merely states that I have no belief that aliens exist, without making any claim against their possible existence, whereas the latter asserts that aliens definitely do not exist.
6. Using the symbol ≡ to mean “is logically equivalent to” (roughly “is the same as saying”), we arrive back at the title of this post: ¬x(y)≢x(¬y). In our example, this means that “I do not believe that aliens exist” does not mean the same thing as “I believe that aliens do not exist”.

If you found all of that blindingly obvious, then give yourself a pat on the back. If not, then don’t be too hard on yourself; I might have just given a terrible explanation, and at very least you are far from alone! There seem to be a lot of people who either don’t understand or don’t appreciate the difference.

A common example of this can be seen in discussions of theology, or more specifically, the existence of a god. A surprising number of people I’ve talked to about this seem to be caught in the false dichotomy that one must either believe in the existence of a god (or gods), or believe that there is no god. (If you are one of these people, please see steps 1 through 6 above.)

This leads to some impressively stupid displays from atheists (in the sense of strong atheism), who openly mock Christians, Buddhists, and everyone in between for their beliefs, while holding the most ridiculous belief of all themselves. If that doesn’t click immediately, then consider this: a reasonable person could, in theory, have a religious experience that convinces them beyond reasonable doubt that a god of some description exists. On the other hand, it is impossible to disprove in any way the possibility that a god could exist. Therefore, even if you consider both to be unreasonable, it is hard to argue that strong atheism is more reasonable than religious faith.

A further surprise to me has been that a fair few of those who do recognise the existence of other options — that is, those who recognise that ¬x(y)≢x(¬y) — see these other options as “sitting on the fence”. This implies there is a decision that can reasonably be made between the two offered beliefs, and furthermore implies weakness in whoever avoids making this decision. But I’m comfortable to admit that there are matters which are, to me, undecidable! I’m comfortable admitting that often I simply don’t know! Now, where can one really find weakness? In that stance, or in the need to arbitrarily form beliefs in order to make oneself comfortable with the world?

Ok, so we’ve done aliens, and we’ve done religion. I’ll finish up with a recap of these, and a couple more examples. Remember that x(¬y) is what is falsely being claimed as the opposite of x(y).

x(y):	“I believe that y.”
y:	“Aliens exist.”
x(y):	“I believe that aliens exist.”
¬x(y):	“I do not believe that aliens exist.”
x(¬y):	“I believe that aliens do not exist.”
Note:	¬x(y) makes no assertion against the possible existence of aliens.

x(y):	“I believe that y.”
y:	“A god exists.”
x(y):	“I believe that a god exists.”
¬x(y):	“I do not believe that a god exists.”
x(¬y):	“I believe that no god exists.”
Note:	¬x(y) makes no assertion against the possible existence of a god.

x(y):	“It is wrong to y.”
y:	The act of eating meat.
x(y):	“It is wrong to eat meat.”
¬x(y):	“It is not wrong to eat meat.”
x(¬y):	“It is wrong to not eat meat.”
Note:	Most meat eaters would argue that ¬x(y); unlike the question of the existence of a god, this is an example that is rarely confused! It doesn’t quite fit the same model as the initial example (y isn’t a statement in this case) but it still works.

x(y):	“There is proof that y.”
y:	“He lied.”
x(y):	“There is proof that he lied.”
¬x(y):	“There is no proof that he lied.”
x(¬y):	“There is proof that he did not lie.”
Note:	Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and vice versa. A guilty man who avoids conviction due to a lack of evidence will speak as though the court proved him innocent, when in fact it only failed to find him guilty.

I’m glad we had this talk. No, no, I’m not mad at you, just… try not to do it again.

UPDATE: I just had to add this one from a friend:

x(y):	“I’m interested in y.”
y:	Clothes.
x(y):	“I am interested in clothes.”
¬x(y):	“I am not interested in clothes.”
x(¬y):	“I am interested in a lack of clothes.”
Note:	Oh, my!

I see what you did there

I’ve written before about some of Connex’s failures as a rail network operator. Today, however, I have mixed feelings. I’m talking about their latest trick to avoid contractual obligations, as reported in The Age Online this morning.

In summary, they are dodging the performance requirements in their contract by running services that officially do not exist. How does this work? Well the Department of Infrastructure dictates that a certain portion of scheduled train services must run on time. The problem?

1. The rail network is extremely crowded in peak periods.
2. Adding more trains makes it hard to keep all services on time.
3. Late trains equate to more fines for Connex, and unhappy customers.

Their solution?

1. Axe a few services here and there.
2. It is then easier to ensure remaining services run as scheduled.
3. Insert extra, unscheduled services whenever possible between the official, scheduled services.
4. Trains are less crowded, scheduled services run on time, and (almost) everybody wins.

The obvious downside here is that there are less reliable services, so commuters that were depending on the axed services to get to work will be unhappy. Some of these people may have to catch earlier trains. But I imagine the number significantly inconvenienced by this would be pretty low.

The other problem is that the practice seems a bit dishonest; Connex still tells customers informally that there are services running at about x time on most days, but because they’re not officially scheduled, there are no penalties for late or missing services.

But is it really all that bad? At least they’re not pretending that these services are reliable. And yes, they can only do it because of a loophole in their contract, but if they’ve come up with a model that works better for customers, should we really care? The effect of this strategy is that officially scheduled services will be more reliable, and Connex will be able to make better use of the tracks, dynamically allocating extra services wherever possible. This should reduce crowding at peak times, and actually get commuters where they want to go faster.

As little as I like to admit it, I think they’re really onto something here. So what can I say? Bravo, you sneaky bastards!