AI and the "3 Laws of Robotics" : Could it be done?

     For those of us who crawled under the covers with a flashlight as we were growing up, Isaac Asimov will probably always be the first thing we think of when the word "robot" turns up. Of course, in Asimov's world robots were always humanoid in appearance. In today's world, with robots becoming more and more integrated into society, we recognize that a human-appearing robot will fulfill only specialized niches,

     The robot (from the Czech word, robota, for "forced labor") only earns that definition if, once given a directive, it can work toward a variety of goals without further instruction. This ability is based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) (though I doubt there is a consensus on the definition of AI). The more, and larger variety, of autonomous actions that can be performed the "higher" the level of AI. Some (such as Alan Turing) believe that AI has only been achieved if one cannot distinguish between the "artificial" responder and a human one.

     Humans have the distinction of being able to do a huge variety of activities, including activities that have never been done before. So, for AI to approach human capabilities, the mechanism would need to be programmed to do them. Hundreds and thousands of tasks. Often such tasks are truly composed of "subtasks" such that those thousand tasks may be made up of, perhaps, 75 subtasks put together in different specific sequences.

     This is rather a lot of work, however, and it would be so much "easier" if the robot could determine how to do new tasks by itself. If a robot is pre-programmed, it can only do what it has precisely been told how to do. "Scratch the right side of the nose" is a different task from "Scratch the left side of the nose". (Sensors could be installed that activate a signal called "itch" and then the program could say "scratch the place that itches".) This self-programming is often called machine learning, which is considered to be a subset of AI.

     Many people are afraid of robots taking over from humans. Whether they develop a contempt of humans -- as within the "Terminator" series or being used as supersoldiers to control, hurt, or kill humans. In order to help people have a more compassionate and trusting view of robots, Isaac Asimov invented the 3 Laws of Robotics which are as follows:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

This is a hierarchy of importance: human life, following orders, self-preservation. For humans, self-preservation may sometimes take the top position -- the idea being, once again, that human life is of more importance than robotic life.

     We will deal only with the "First Law" in this blog. This breaks into two categories -- active harm and lack of prevention of harm (when known and possible). For pre-programmed robots, it is easy to avoid the first -- just don't program that task. For self-programmed robots, there needs to be an "override" program to prevent action if it will cause harm.

     The second, prevention of harm, is much, much, harder as it requires "judgement" -- deciding how dangerous a situation is and what various contingencies might arise that put people into danger. This is the situation currently facing those who are trying to program self-driving cars. The problem is similar between pre-programmed and self-programmed robots/mechanisms. For pre-programmed robots, all of the contingencies must be thought of -- good luck, but it isn't likely to be possible. It is possible to envision a self-programmed robot to "learn" enough to be as good as a human in their judgement -- but we currently don't know how to do that. Maybe we will learn.

     The "other hand" to this, however, is that implementation of the "First Law" is purposeful. It must be done deliberately. There are too many people, and too many groups, that currently have people deliberately hurting other people. It is not reasonable to think that usage of robots will be any better than usage of people. This leads us to the world of the "Terminator", programmed face-recognition assault drones, supersoldiers and all of the nightmares of technologic fear.

     In Asimov's world, "U.S. Robotics" had a monopoly on building robots and was a benevolent entity that insisted on the 3 laws being in each "positronic" brain for their robots. In our world, there is no effective control of technology in a preventative mode (we can make laws to penalize use after the face). I cannot imagine how we can prevent some of this harm from occurring but there are a LOT of very creative, imaginative, intelligent people out there. Please start working on the problem while it is still theoretical.

Being Agile: In software and life

     In February of 2001, seventeen people met to talk, have fun, and find common ground. They were concerned with the reality that there was so much software being produced that was of low-quality, overly-complicated, and overworking people to a degree that was not reasonable. Out of that gathering, they released a document called "The Agile Manifesto". The four core values are usually summarized as:

• individuals and interactions over processes and tools;
• working software over comprehensive documentation;
• customer collaboration over contract negotiation; and.
• responding to change over following a plan.

     There are a number of books that go into depth about various aspects of this philosophy. I am just going to delve into a couple of the primary differences and obstacles when moving from a "waterfall" process (one thing follows another in a given order and rhythm).

     If a person, or group of people, is working on something that has been built (or something very similar) hundreds, or thousands, of time (think of a factory line or processing a standard form) then it is fairly simple to know what is needed, when, and how long it will take. Most software projects are new -- it has never been accomplished before. There is no complete knowledge of what is needed or how it should be designed. There is no knowledge of how many people will take how long to complete it at a reasonable quality level.

     Traditional methodologies say "OK. We don't know. Guess. But we will hold you to that guess and you will build what we have initially agreed to build. When something goes wrong, expect 70-hour work weeks and it will be released even if it doesn't work." One major software company was famous (infamous?) for releasing software with major problems -- using sales from the first release to work on fixing those bugs in future releases. (In general, the software eventually became very usable.)

     Most people would agree that documentation is useful. There is external documentation -- how to use the software or how other software modules should interact with the software (called an Application Programming Interface -- API). There is internal documentation -- how is it programmed and how the code works. Both are useful and both are reasonable.

     Since there is no way to know what the final product will be, documentation should be done in phases. A skeleton -- sparse but sufficient information to start with -- should happen at the first. Having a fully "complete" document at the beginning is a waste of effort and may be counter-productive leading to an inferior and non-competitive product.

     The API should be as clear as currently known -- and changes sent out to all people/groups that need to know as they occur. How to use (the User Interface (UI)) should follow the same process, initially as it is and notifying the testing and product marketing people whenever it changes. The design and features may need to be modified according to current market conditions or feedback from potential customers. Internal documentation should start off general and become more and more specific as the process continues with the final documentation reflecting the real state of the software.

     One situation in which the Agile methodology is frequently crippled is when the marketing/sales area does not follow along in the methodology. If marketing/sales continues to have releases at predetermined times with feature sets advertised well in advance of those dates, much of the Agile methodology with the developers will not be achievable.

     Huge amounts of overhead will be created. This overhead is involved with keeping track of delivery dates and the current state of features. This is contradictory to the original design, and purpose, of the Agile methodology which understands that dates of "completion" of features/products, of acceptable quality, cannot be predetermined. Dates will be missed and/or quality will suffer.

     The movement towards "subscription" software (which is often associated with "Continuous Delivery") could ease this desire to hang onto fixed releases dates and contents since subscribers will always get the best currently available as it is released. Alas, even with subscriptions, marketing/sales needs to reorient the way they present the product.

     So, how does this apply to life? In most of the technological nations, life is ruled by the clock. There are deadlines. The trains run on time (or try to). Schedules determine the work day. Reservations are made. We make plans that may be very detailed.

     But problems occur. Things don't go "as planned". There is extra stress to the point of not being healthy. Flexibility and the ability to go with the moment are methods that can be of great help within our world -- even to the point of changing society to be less clock-oriented. Being agile helps.

A Six Month Reserve: A good goal for everyone

     One of the first suggestions that a financial advisor gives when you sit down with her to determine a savings/investment plan is -- have six months net income in cash for emergencies. Just past tax time in the U.S., my reserves are down but I can squeak by for a number of months with no added luxuries (no purchases, no special food, no takeout/curbside food, no presents, ...)

     I am one of the lucky ones. As we are witnessing in the U.S. (and probably many other areas of the world) people do not have six months of reserves in general. In fact, most people don't even have one month of reserves in savings. Going even further, there are probably a lot of people that are out of money by the time they receive their next paycheck -- living "paycheck to paycheck".

     This is a primary side-effect of steadily growing income inequality. Back in my earlier blog on living wages, I put forth the way people can determine what is a living wage for a person in a given geographical area.  Many people in the U.S. do not make a living wage. If you don't have enough money to pay for all of your necessities, then you will NOT be able to save money in addition. When there is a little bit extra, it is so tempting to use it to buy something desired that has been postponed (perhaps for a very long time). The more people who do not make a living wage, the more people who CANNOT prepare a financial cushion to ride out a disaster (pandemic, economic recession or depression, long-term unemployment, ...).

     OK. You make a living wage. Do you have that six month reserve built up? No? Well, in the first place, it may take a long time to build up a six month reserve even if you put away 1/10 of your salary each month (or more, recommended if you are able). Second, problems happen -- health problems are particularly possible in the U.S. and, even if insured, they are a large financial drain. (If you are NOT insured, welcome to the world of bankruptcy.) Or perhaps your car broke down and needs major repairs. Your parents need to be moved to your home for you to take care of them? Lots of possibilities to drain the reserve and hard to build it up.

     Let's say that no disaster occurs and you have a bit extra each month beyond living expenses -- maybe even a bit more than living plus a few luxuries expenses. What do you do with that money? When I was growing up, I was always in a savings mode. My brother wasn't quite that way so I was around as his personal bank. He often paid me back but it could not be relied upon. In our schools (and, often, in our homes), we are not taught how to handle money -- how to budget, how to avoid usury, how to save, how to invest, and so forth. A lot of celebrities and sports stars fall into this trap -- live high but when they break a leg or lose their popularity, they have not saved while they could. Some do -- they should be the most revered role models and not the ones that spend the most and are the flashiest.

     These examples, and the above essay, are about individuals. What about businesses? Well, quite a few large, often multinational, corporations have "deep pockets" and can take care of expenses, and carry on with business, for months (sometimes years) -- which doesn't mean they may not make business adjustments in anticipation of near-term or long-term needs. Other businesses have a credit line upon which they can draw for a few months of survival. But the small business is really in much the same condition as an individual.

     Small businesses often have a very small profit margin. Similar to an individual, the required cash flow may be considered to be "living wage" -- with any profit above and beyond. They, also, should try to save 1/10 (or more) of the profit each month to build up a reserve. But, as it is with an individual, it will take a long time to build up multi-month reserves. And, even worse than with an individual, many other people's incomes are also dependent.

     And the moral of the story? People need living wages plus. People, and businesses, need financial training. And saving for the future, when possible, is a very important item for the budget.

Flattening that curve -- what does it mean?

[ Numbers are as accurate as possible at time of writing -- but continually changing]

     At this moment, much of the world is on "lockdown" -- isolated from one another and moving around only if a person is categorized as performing "essential" work or if a person must leave the house to perform an "essential" activity (obtain food, medicine, repair, ... as defined per state or country). An essential worker is a person who is performing that essential work.

     At the "front lines" are the medical workers, ambulance drivers, ERTs, and often police and fire department workers. Being at the front line means that you are being confronted, and working, with those who ARE sick -- not just someone who MIGHT be sick (which is about everyone). Others who are providing essential services -- grocery store workers, postal and delivery people, sanitation workers, truckers, agricultural and meat processing workers, pharmacists, people who work in take-out/curbside/delivery of food, and many others -- are interacting with people who might be sick. In some of these cases, because they are interacting with so many different people, their personal risk (and, indirectly, risk of their families and others with whom they may be in regular close contact) may be high.

     A total lockdown (nobody contacts anyone else), can stop the spread of a virus (in the current case, covid-19, but applicable to any viral pandemic). But such an absolute isolation would cause many deaths -- directly from the illness (not being able to go to a hospital) and indirectly from lack of food and other needed supplies. And testing would still be needed -- somehow -- to determine when it was safe to release the lockdown. Not an easy scenario and if you miss even one case before you ease the lockdown -- back to square one.

     So, we go towards the above, essential allowed, lockdowns. This cannot stop the spread of the virus but it can SLOOOOOW down the spread of the virus.

     Yes, until a vaccine is approved and administered, people will continue to get ill. Slowing down the spread is called "flattening the curve". The main reason for this is that if spread is allowed to go unchecked it will overwhelm the available healthcare system. The Center for Disease Control (CDC)  has the following diagram:

In simpler terms, the graph says that you want to delay the period at which you have the most active cases of people not being well AND you want that highest number of active cases to be as small as possible.

     Healthcare involves hospital space (beds), sufficient staff (doctors, nurses, administrative, ...), equipment (ventilators, masks, protection hoods, ...) and medicines. Overwhelming the capacity in any of these areas will put the "overflow" into danger mode. At that point, the staff will have to "triage" the infected people with treatment going to the most badly infected and the rest will have to hope to survive on their own.

     Much of the time, equipment and medicines are insufficient but there isn't much that a regular citizen can do about that situation. Staff, unfortunately, will fluctuate as people get sick and (hopefully) recover -- proper protective equipment can help with that. What people can best have an effect on is the number of infected cases -- and that can be done by reducing the chance of an infected person infecting other people.

     Hospital beds are easy to count, so lets use those numbers to determine the maximum "peak" of the curve that will not overwhelm the system. Note that lack of staff, equipment, and medicines may DECREASE the maximum that the healthcare system can handle.

     Let us say that, in my county, the hospitals have 617 beds (which should be close to accurate, according to noted average numbers of beds -- 1.9/1000 times 325 (my county has approximately 325,000 people)). Approximately 2/3 of those beds are already occupied at a given "normal" period of time. That leaves 207 beds available for emergency needs. If not too many health care workers get sick (such that we are unable to staff for a fully case load) then as long as the number of hospitalized cases stay under 207, it can be handled.

     One additional factor is what percentage of cases need to be hospitalized? All cases need to be identified and treated but not all require a hospital bed. Without universal, daily (or every two days), testing precise numbers are not possible -- because there is no way to know exactly how many people are infected. Some early reports indicated that MAYBE 1/5 of the cases need to be hospitalized. Therefore, a number greater than 1035 cases will overwhelm the number of hospital beds (1035 / 5 = 207) in my county. Recorded numbers (as of today) of cases for my county is 536 -- so we are not overwhelmed as of yet but our numbers continue to increase daily. We are still very much in danger.

     If we apply the same formulas to the situation in New York, we see (as of today) that there are approximately 270 hospital beds per 100,000 (2.7/1000). If 2/3 of these beds are already occupied, that leaves us with 90 beds per 100,000 As of today, there are 1302 cases per 100,000. 1/5 of 1302 is 260 expected hospitalized cases. We see that New York state has far exceeded the number of hospital beds (almost 3 times). And, New York may have 270 hospital beds per 100,000 for the STATE but hospital beds and cases are not equally spread out within the state. Thus, the New York City metro area is in much worse condition than what would be seen from the initial formula. That is why so many temporary hospital beds are being set up -- but just adding beds does not add equipment, medicine, or staff.

     What happens if we do exceed the number that can be handled? We can see that in areas of the country that have had cases rise out of control for too long. Death rates rise. In Italy, this has also happened. The same holds for cruise ships and other confined areas such as retirement homes.

     So, when can an "essentials only" lockdown be cleared? This is associated with the idea of "herd immunity" where the contagion factor (how easily the disease is passed along to others) is associated with how many people are no longer able to be infected (recovered or naturally immune or vaccinated). The contagion factor is improved by isolation and lockdown. There are too many factors involved for me to even venture a guess.

     In the Spanish Flu Pandemic (1918 through 1920), there were "waves" of infection. Lockdowns, followed by ease of restriction, followed by increasing infection, followed by lockdowns, followed by ease of restriction. Health care is potentially much better than in 1918 but many political and economic factors are involved with treatments and population restriction.

     As mentioned earlier, full accurate numbers are not available. We don't really know just how many people are, or have been, infected. We don't know how many people who have died and had their reasons marked down in error. But we do have ways to slow the rate of spread of infection and we have real world examples of what happens if the rate of infection overwhelms the healthcare available.

     Best of futures to all. Stay safe.

Short-term and Long-term planning: everything in its season

     You are crossing a street at a crosswalk and a bus is hurtling towards you. Short-term planning says to get out of the way of the bus immediately. Long-term planning may have to do with bus lanes, protection on the crosswalks, a pedestrian bridge, better signals (both directions) or something else that will reduce the chance of this danger from reoccurring. If you don't follow through on the short-term planning then you may not be around to take care of long-term planning. If you don't get long-term planning underway then, even if you successfully move out of the way, eventually someone will be hit.
     When a farmer wants to plant a seed, they must wait until the time is right. But first, they must prepare the soil. Preparation of the soil, planting, weeding, harvesting becomes a cyclical process with seeds from the harvest (perhaps) being used in the next planting. The farmer must be aware of how the crops interact with the soil so that the cycle can continue. Fertilizer may be needed on a regular basis -- or perhaps the crops rotated with nitrogen-fixing plants to restore the fertility of the land. Care of the land is in long-term planning. Short-term is each step in the process leading to the short-term goal of the harvest. If the soil is not taken care of, it will eventually not be able to be used to grow crops. If the crops are not grown, there will be no food for the people to take care of the land.
     In many situations, long-term planning is set by a goal. Short-term planning takes you along a path to reach that goal. The path sustains the journey to the goal. There should always be a goal and there should always be a journey. In order for this to happen, long-term planning must adapt based on the journey.
     For businesses, the long-term goal is often called a "mission statement" while the context of the business within society is called a "vision statement". In some cases, the "vision statement" is also indicative of the lifetime of the organization. For example, the vision statement of the Alzheimer's Association is "a world without Alzheimer's disease". Once Alzheimer's disease is eliminated, the reason of existence for the Alzheimer's Association is gone.
     For this reason, an ongoing mission statement should either be prepared to be modified by the journey or it should be so encompassing that the journey will never end. If, for example, a Cancer opposing organizing wanted a statement which would not arrive (at least not in my ability to dream), they would expand to "a world with everyone mentally and physically well". Once cancer was conquered, the organization can continue to the next physical disease -- or the next mental ailment -- and move forward.
     Commercial businesses also my have mission statements and vision statements. There are some truly inspiring mission and vision statements. A problem exists, unfortunately, in that the business must survive in order to attempt to achieve their mission statement. This usually involves cash flow since, in our current society, people and companies need income to survive. Short-term survival can blind a person, or a company, to the needs of long-term survival and both can affect the feasibility of the mission or vision statement. It is all too easy to narrow one's perceptions to the next moment and not evaluate the actions according to the broader statements. In a more personal context, the Biblical quote arises that "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak".
     We can only do our best and attempt to keep our long-term plans in mind while dealing with short-term needs.

Less is more: The Case for Minimalism

     When we talk about "less" and "more", it has to be applied to something. In the case of minimalism, it can be said to apply to complexity, accumulation, and "overhead" -- and, likely, many other things. There may be a better word than overhead -- happy to hear suggestions. Overhead is that extra amount (of time, distance, effort) that is required beyond what is needed for what you really want to accomplish.
     It is rare that a week goes by without some (hopefully small) "glitch" occurring to make me aware how complicated "normal" things in my life really are -- which usually claims an hour or two of my schedule. This past week, it was a matter of rain causing a short in the exterior line connections for our Internet connection -- it triggered the "Ground Fault Interrupter" (GFI) breaker of the outlet to which the optical interface device was plugged. Luckily, repetition of specific problems make them quicker to figure out. (The first time it occurred, it took about six hours including an hour and a half on the phone with my Internet provider.)
     Just tackling the INSIDE configuration of our Internet connection, our house has routers (WiFi and Ethernet -- same devices, different connection methods), gateway, and optical network interface. Plus, there are all of the cables, power and signal, connecting everything. During that first (six hour) session of determining the cause of our network failure, we analyzed each segment of this configuration, one at a time. At the end of the period with the Internet service provider, we had eliminated everything that could be checked remotely -- so a service call was set up. And, so it would have remained if I hadn't been sure that there was a contradiction between their tests and my understanding of the network. Their test of the optical network interface was from the network side. But, it turned out that the GFI had popped that time also. From the network side it "worked" fine -- but, without proper power, it did not actually function.
     So, do I want to eliminate my Internet connection to simplify my life? No, I don't. However, I remain fully aware of how much simpler it is to take a book from a shelf and read it as opposed to all that can go wrong with streaming a video.
     In the region of accumulation, we recently moved to another place which has 40% less square footage than the previous place. We spent four months just trying to reduce stuff to be able to fit (concentrating on the larger furniture items). We STILL have a garage full at the new place which, especially with my wife's efforts, are being slowly sorted through. Our next place (once our younger sons have moved out) will probably be 40 to 50% less in size than this place (giving a net reduction of around 2/3 over a space of five or six years). We are trying to follow "the houseboat rule". This came from a friend who had a houseboat on Lake Union near Seattle. If you bring something onto the houseboat then something has to leave the houseboat -- otherwise you would eventually find yourself sinking into the lake. The strange thing is that the more things we get rid of the easier it is to do. (Not easy -- just easier.) It is a matter of reaching the point of no longer considering whether an item is useful or not -- they often are -- but, rather, a matter of whether we want to haul it around, find space for it, and have our children have to deal with it after our passage.
     I worked remotely, from my home, for over twenty years. It works really great for someone who is self-organized AND has a tightly focused goal or assignment. I was helping to create a large portfolio of software for my company. I worked hard and, sometimes, long. Working remotely was great for the goal. But, when we had created our portfolio, and did not know quite what was best for us to do next, working remotely was not as effective. Yet, at present, the majority of jobs in my work arena include a 3-hour round-trip commute (in less-than-pleasant traffic). Three hours of commuting for nine hours of work -- or a 25% overhead (3 hours of the 12 total). Many people do it and, perhaps, I will have to do it also at some point. But do I want that? Not particularly.
     Thoreau once talked about how there are equivalencies -- how much time must you work to be able to afford a ticket on a train to somewhere versus how much time needed to walk there. Of course, the actual economics depend on the time in history and the economic conditions of the specific area. We trade off the convenience (when it all works) of electronic media versus the simplicity (but bulk) of physical media. We accumulate things but, at some point, we can no longer "take it with us" -- so, why accumulate? We spend hours getting to and from a job. Should we move? What is the effect of moving?
     Minimalism is not "the" answer for everyone -- but we should all be conscious of our choices and the real cost of our choices.

Fahrenheit 451 : Levels of censorship

     I just finished listening to the audiobook for Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I read a dozen, or more, books each month but I have to listen to books (for obvious reasons) when I am driving. In the set of CDs in the audiobook, there was an afterword where the narrator relayed Ray Bradbury's thoughts and writings about some of the motivations for the book as well as some views about types of censorship. These items jogged my thoughts as I rrecognized that there certainly is not just ONE form of censorship. They follow the range from self-censorship to George Orwell's Newspeak from 1984.

Self-censorship. Everyone censors their own reading. There is no alternative. There are between 600,000 to a million books published (many self-published nowadays) each year. I read a lot. Some people read more. But, no one could possibly read every book. How do we censor? First, of course, we are not aware of all of those 100s of thousands of books. Maybe we encounter, or a friend talks about, or we see a reference to, a few thousand books a year (some of us much fewer, others more). Of those, some are interested in only a few topics, others many. Maybe we don't like (or do like) the cover or flyleaf. Maybe we have a favorite author -- or someone we refuse to read. At any rate, from those million books, I choose 130 or so to read each year (my wife reads more).

Community censorship. This is likely to be the type of censorship that most people think about. A group of people in a town come together and decide that some book is not something they want others to easily read -- so they try (or succeed) to force the local library/bookstore to not carry the book. Or a CD. Or a Podcast. The community can encompass a neighborhood, an ethnic group, a city, a state, or even an entire country. At this level of censorship, a group is actively trying to prevent others from making their own choices as to what they want to read -- but it isn't illegal to read it.

Politically reinforced censorship. This does not necessarily mean that a particular political party is trying to ban a book (although it is possible). This is when the community decides to make it a legal issue. Not only is it made difficult to read, it is actively made illegal to read and, perhaps, to purchase or possess. They may even decide to burn books or otherwise get rid of copies. This is the level of censorship described in Fahrenheit 451. Note that, in Ray Bradbury's book, it is not imposed "top down" from the government but "bottom up" (from the citizens) based on not wanting to be disturbed, or "made" unhappy, by having to think about issues and conflicting ideas. It also applies to such book burnings as happened during WW II by the Nazi party in Germany (which might be considered "top down" but are authorized by passive, or active, participation by the citizens).

_________

     The above types of censorship are of the "all or none" type. The book can be read or not -- but the book, itself, stays unaltered. The contents can also be censored such that language is changed, or parts are eliminated, or areas extended. Such falls into the same categories as the above but apply only to portions.

__________

Editorial censorship. This can be done by the author, the editor, or the publisher. The author does it as a matter of course during her, or his, process of determining the "best" state for the material to be presented. Words and sentences are changed, added, deleted, put into different spots. Except for a very, very few authors, there are various drafts of material before it is presented in a form meant to be published.
     If an author is well-known, or with a great publishing record, an editor will usually give, at most, recommendations. (There have been times when I have read books by well-known authors when I really have wished the editor had been more insistent on changes.) More often, changes suggested/required by an editor become part of an argument between author and editor. The less published the author, the less clout they have. Changes by the editor may be involved with grammar, spelling, flow, content or whatever else the editor thinks is important. For one of my books, the editor slashed out a number of sections in order to shorten the book -- leaving references in without the material to which they referred.
     Finally, at the publisher, they may require changes to meet their publishing criteria. If it requires substantial changes to be readable then they will probably just reject it -- unless the name of the author is considered to be more valuable than the content.

Community censorship by parts. This falls into two categories -- meeting current socially acceptable standards or a desire to change history such that current social standards are applied to works written during older periods. For current standards, it will be usually be applied by the editor and/or publisher.
     There are instances, however, when the actual material is not the objection -- it is just the fact that the author is not part of the group of which they are writing. A man writing about a woman; a woman writing about a man; a white woman writing about a black man; a Christian person writing about a Muslim person, ... Certainly, an author should always be careful not to generalize about their own groups or about other groups. But, every person in the world is unique. If we are not allowed to write about anyone different, then the only acceptable writings are autobiographies without reference to anyone with whom we have interacted.
     In 1904, a series about a family called The Bobbsey Twins was started. They were children's books about a family that had adventures and vacations in different places. In 1960, the early books were rewritten. Part of the rewrite was to bring them "up to date" -- eliminate the horse and buggies and bring in automobiles and so forth. Other parts, however, were to rewrite for current social standards. The rewritten books looked very little like the originals. Mark Twain's books are often heavily criticized for language and for interactions between characters -- not because they are not accurate for the time but because they ARE accurate for the time. In the comments of Ray Bradbury relayed at the end of the audiobooks for Fahrenheit 451, the narrator talked about how many groups wanted Ray Bradbury to change his book for their desires -- add more female characters, shorten sections, add new section, ...

Politically reinforced censorship by parts. This is active rewriting of history. George Orwell's book 1984 goes into this in great depth. However, it has also been done by various governments -- Stalin, within the USSR, is documented as having destroyed many writings and replaced them with other writings that give different accounts of events. He would also change photos -- not with the degree of credibility that can be done now but sufficiently well that it lent doubt to the original records. Some state governments change the wordings within history books to match what they want to present. As the ability, and ease, to create "deep fakes" accelerates, this will become a greater and greater danger.

What If : the game of possibilities

     Once upon a time, there was a science fiction/fantasy magazine called "Worlds of If" (with "If" highlighted). The basis for the title is that many stories and ideas begin with the premise of "what if?" What if there was Faster-Than-Light (FTL) travel? What if we woke up one morning able to "hear" everyone's thoughts. Some of the more prestigious early science fiction authors (such as Isaac Asimov) had a general rule -- you can break currently known laws of nature and physics ONCE. More than that and it was "fantasy". You could extrapolate stories that extended current knowledge without breaking any of the currently known laws of nature and physics, of course. Such were often classified as "hard" science fiction.
     The phrase of "Worlds of If" also marked the idea of parallel time streams or universes. This is used in many stories of "alternate" histories. Wars with "what ifs" have been used in many different books and video takeoffs such as Philip K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" or Harry Turtledove's "The Guns of the South". These deal with changing the present by changing the past. The author is no longer living in the same time stream, or universe, as that created within the alternate history.
     Stories of time travel have the possibility to create these splits on purpose or accidentally. They usually don't end well -- pointing out that omniscience (knowing everything) is not a human characteristic. In these cases, the "current" timeline "vanishes" because it is no longer "real".
     Of course, there is a third method/history of splitting history -- and that is deliberately deciding that something that did happen -- didn't (or that something that did NOT happen -- did). As would be true in the "time travel" situation, it may be hard to determine reality of the past (and it is getting harder and harder with the increasing ability to do "deep fakes" of information) -- but events move forward with consequences.
     IF the world was flat, then a number of astronomical and celestial mechanical equations would not work as they do. IF the Holocaust never happened, then there would be descendants from those who were killed, concentration camps (able to be tracked back to points in time) would not exist, and photographs and other media evidence (which, unfortunately, WILL become easier and easier to fake) would not exist. IF there was never a landing on the moon then it would have had to have been faked. And, in 1969, the technology did not exist to fake it to the level needed -- and if such technology DID exist to be able to fake it, it would have required a much deeper and greater level of investment than that of the space program. Events have consequences -- so that they can be checked from what did, or did not occur.
     On a more general level, the same situation occurs for us in the present, recognizing that our present decisions, actions, and reactions have a large influence on what will occur in the future. A story of the future describing ONE potential sequence of events and future history is still science fiction (or fantasy) -- but it is also possible to fragment future history and describe multiple paths that time may follow.
     Away from science fiction or shifted perceptions, most of us have probably indulged in some "what if" scenarios. What if I had majored in Art rather than Computer Science? What if I had gone to the Senior Prom instead of sitting at home watching TV? What if I had accepted that Rhodes scholarship? It doesn't matter what the "what if?" is -- it is still a shift. And that shift would have changed the present. So, look around and see what exists -- your current family, friends, achievements, expectations. IF that "what if" had occurred, your current situation would be changed. Maybe some items are more "resilient" -- the change in the past would not affect the present -- but some changes "ripple" more. If you like much of what is in the present, and possible for the future, then accept and forgive any "mistakes" of the past. They brought you here.

All in the Numbers: Popular Economic Numbers as Used by Politicians

     There was "good news" in the U.S. in October 2019 (see article). The U.S. added 128,000 jobs to the economy. Unemployment is down. But, wait, what ARE those 128,000 jobs? According to CNBC, "The Labor Department explained in a press release that much of the upswing in leisure and hospitality came from a surge in hiring at food and beverage establishments, which alone added more than 45,000 jobs for the sector’s best month since January" The article further indicated that 60,000 were from the leisure and hospitality sector while health care and social assistance added 34,200 jobs. Is there a pattern here? Ah -- 22,000 jobs were created for professional and business services which is defined as management consultant positions, computer system design, and architectural and engineering services.
     So, we have 105,000 jobs added in fairly low-wage areas, 22,000 added in relatively high-wage areas, 36,000 lost in medium-wage manufacturing, and a few dozen thousand added in low medium-wage areas. Is this a success? Or is it a failure?
     The point is that the number of jobs added is not very relevant unless one also knows the median wage paid for those jobs. In the U.S., and in most of the more industrialized areas of the world, "income inequality" continues to accelerate. Numbers such as the "number of jobs created" are meant to encourage and say things are great. Maybe they are -- but the analysis of the October 2019 job results don't tend to lend themselves to that conclusion. Lots of low-paying jobs and many fewer higher-paying jobs do not start to spread the economy out to more and more people.
     "The average wage for people in the U.S. has gone up!"  Sounds great. Wait a minute. If I have 10 people working and five earn $10, 3 earn $15, 1 earns $20, and 1 earns $100 -- we have an average wage of $21.50. What happens if that person earning $100 now earns $200? Wow. We now have an average wage of $31.50. Doesn't that sound great! probably not for the lower-earning 9 people.
     So average doesn't tell us much. How about median or mode? Median is the value given when, sorted in order, the number of instances of a value below a point is the same as that above that point. In our example above, with an even number of instances (10), the median is the average of the values at position 5 and position 6 -- so, for the above example, it would be $12.50. Note that, unlike for average, if the person in position 10 (highest earner) doubles their income, the median does not change.
     How about mode? Mode is the "most popular" instance. Since, in the above example, five people earn $10, $10 is the mode. Once again, when the most highly paid person gets paid double, the mode remains the same.
     There is a quote popularized by Mark Twain which I have always liked: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Although this does call out the need to both understand, and interpret correctly, statistics -- it is not really fair to statisticians. But statistics are a politician's best friend largely because most people do NOT know what statistics mean or how they are calculated.
     "The average wage has doubled!" Sounds good, right? Not necessarily. "500,000 jobs have been produced in the past month!" Wow, things are completely rosy. Once again, not necessarily. If 400,000 jobs were lost then it is actually terrible. Usually, what is reported is NET gain so if 500,000 jobs were added and 400,000 were lost it would be reported as 100,000 jobs added. Sound good? Well, with that great of a turnover of labor, the chances are not wonderful that those 400,000 (actually, probably not the same people) who lost and got a job improved their wages and benefits.
     "$70 million dollars of welfare fraud found". Horrible, right? Well, yes, it should certainly be reduced if possible but total welfare funding is about $67 billion. So, this atrocious fraud is actually part of 1/1000 of all of the welfare funding -- or 999/1000 are NOT committing fraud. In most businesses, this would be a resounding success. In Florida, politicians stamped the ground and screamed about all of the welfare fraud -- and spent MORE money investigating the fraud than the net amount of the fraud. A net taxpayer loss.
      Let's take the above $67 billion in welfare funding mentioned, once again. A lot of money isn't it? It certainly is and I would not mind getting my $200 share of that money. But, within the context of overall spending, the $67 billion is insignificant in comparison to the overall federal budget -- about 0.5% or 1 part out of 2000 [note that it is about 21% of the federal social support budget but that is also not a high percentage of the overall federal budget]. The $67 billion is not significant overall but politicians blow it up to seem significant so that people will ignore the other 99.5%.
     Another side track of statistics from the politician's mouth is rankings. We are number one! OK. We probably are -- but number one in ranking for what characteristic? Hopefully, the people of most countries think that their country is the best -- a subjective ranking that has multiple truths based on who is saying it and where they are saying it. But, when we get to rankings based on quantitative (countable) characteristics, the record isn't so great. Yes, if a specific formula is applied to the countable numbers, there will be a most highly ranked (# 1) and a most lowly ranked (# xxx). But not many countries have multiple "# 1 rankings" for their country. Given a large enough population and land mass, most countries will have A (one or more) "#1 ranking". But, even in this case is being first in numbers of prisoners equivalent to being first in the number of books per household? So, relative rankings are fairly useless -- dependent on many different factorsl 
     Numbers do mean something -- but not always what they are implied to mean.

Holiday Epistles: If and Why?

     Each year, for the past 40 years, I have composed something to send off to friends and family for the holiday season. They started as letters, moved to cards and letters, then to cards including a letter and a sheet of photos, and finally just a letter and sheet of photos.
     Why do I do it? It certainly takes a lot of time and effort (and some money -- less since I stopped sending cards). And, of course, I could probably send them out electronically to 80% of the recipients -- but the catch is that there are those 20% to whom I cannot send them electronically. So, I support the postal service and have them delivered to their mailboxes. Sometimes, I have a vision of them progressing around the globe -- following the distribution pattern of mail sorting centers (yes, I am a geek and a nerd).
     Hopefully, there are very few who say to themselves "why is this person bothering me again this year?" But it is highly unlikely that every person is fascinated with all of the events recorded within the letter -- or is even aware of all of the people, places, and events mentioned. Most probably fall into the middle range -- glad to know I am still alive and somewhat interested in what has happened (but not always glad of the length of the letter).
     I don't keep a journal (it would be great if I did but my focus gets redirected on an irregular basis). So, these annual summaries of the life of my family become an archive. Trips, milestones, tragedies, triumphs follow through in the stream of my past 40 years as reflected in my epistles. This is a wonderful side-effect of my sharing my life via the annual epistles.
     The epistles also act as a prompt. They say to others "I am glad I am in contact with you". Their responses (if any) vary tremendously. A card with a printed message and signature indicates a desire to stay in touch. A message (of whatever length) indicates a desire to share their year with you.
     LACK of a response does not give a clear indication. Just as in the Paul Simon song, "Something So Right" -- "Some people never say the words 'I love you'. It's not their style to be so bold". What is the sound of one hand clapping? There is no set formula as to whether to continue to send to a non-responsive recipient. Do you hear from them, or about them, at some other point in the year? Are they significant people in your life such that you want to make sure they have the option of knowing what is going on in your life?
     Sometimes, it is time to allow someone to slip away. No more letters. No keeping up with changes of address. This doesn't mean that person was not important within your life -- only that it is not continuing into the present and future.
     A final aspect is the actual list of recipients. These are the people you want to keep informed. Not all are your best friends. Some might be work associates. Some used to be close but are not anymore. The list summarizes a good portion of the relationships, you have established in your life, that continue to have some type of impact for you. Looking over the list, you may discover that "hey, I would like to talk to person A once again. Do I have their phone number?" In other cases, it may trigger sadness. A person has died within the past year. Or they have entered into a non-responsive limbo and it is time to make a decision as to whether you should keep sending to them.
     It is a record but not a static item. I am working on this year's epistle -- but wondering what will be in next year's.

Euphemisms: Language Shadows and Thieves

     I have loved learning languages for as long as I can remember. Of course, first I learned the "mother tongue" -- in my case, English. But, with each language that I endeavored to learn, I gained that little bit additional understanding of a people and a culture (and of myself). Russian loves indirection and passive sentence structure. German goes for precision and building block structuring. Farsi brings a bit of poetry into a people who have often had to struggle. And so forth.
     There are many different stages of proficiency with a language. To become truly fluent in a language, it is necessary to fully live with those for whom the language reflects their thoughts. Three final tests for fluency exist -- music, humor, and euphemisms. Music is the test to make sure that you can interpolate sounds even when they are not standard and, indeed, possibly quite distorted. Humor tests the ability to think about matters in similar ways as "native" speakers. And euphemisms -- which are a reflection on the language's associated social interactions, taboos, and insecurities.
     I have not had the (or, perhaps, created the) opportunities to immerse myself into any language to the fully fluent stage (except for English). But, even in English, I find myself fighting against the world of euphemisms.
     From my point of view, euphemisms can fall into two areas -- which I call language shadows and language thieves. A language shadow substitutes one word or phrase, which still has the same meaning, for another. This is done to "soften" the phrase -- to not be "blunt". "Passed away" or "Meet their maker" instead of "died". You would never use the phrase "passed away" for anything other than "died". Although I may still prefer to be more direct, I don't consider language shadowing to be a bad thing since it does not take away from the language but overlays the meaning with social, spiritual, or religious overtones.
     Euphemisms as language thieves substitutes a word or phase, which has its own distinct meaning, for another word or phrase which is "uncomfortable" to be said. In this manner, the original meaning of the euphemistic phrase is either lost (can no longer easily say what the words would normally mean) or require mental substitution which depends on sentence, or conversational, context. Euphemisms as language thieves could also be called a form of "doublespeak" or even "newspeak" -- as defined, and used, by George Orwell in his book1984.
     Language thieves are used when a subject makes us uncomfortable -- "sleeping with" rather than "having sex with". They are used when we want to avoid moral consequences -- "collateral damage" instead of "murdering civilians and bystanders" or "friendly fire" instead of "killing our allies instead of our declared enemies". They are used when we want to avoid responsibility -- "I'm washing my hair" rather than "I am not interested in you, please find someone else".
    Once again, the distinction between a language shadow and a language thief is whether the substituted word or phrase has, or should have, its own meaning. It is extremely difficult (a person has to double the number of words to explain what it is NOT) to use the phrase "sleeping with" to actually mean individually sleeping together without any sexual contact. It could be argued that "friendly fire" is a language shadow since it is an absurd phrase that has no inherent use or meaning. Perhaps we should refine the definition of a language thief to include substituting words or phrases that have no real use or meaning?