Hey, the Jazz Festival has returned to Montreal! The Festival is one of the best things about summer here - two weeks of great, mostly free music. There’s a lot to say about the Festival, but for now I’ll just stick to a few things.
Each year, the Festival has a few big free shows, that typically draw tens of thousands of people down to Place des Arts. Sometimes they’re incredible, like Cirque du Soleil. Sometimes, like last night, it’s the Neville Brothers. I usually try to go to the big concerts, even when I’m not crazy about the artists, just because of the scope of the events.
So I tried, valiantly, to appreciate Aaron Neville’s crooning, but it just wasn’t happening (even after an afternoon of drinking and baseball). Luckily for us, there was a great band from France - Smooth playing at another stage. Billed as “an electro-jazz sung in English but grooving in the universal language of hip”, these guys were really good. Their sound was built up from their really funky rhythm section of a drummer and bass player, with a singer/guitarist/keyboardist on top.
That show was part of the Groove series at the Festival, which always has the best party music each year, and looks to be really solid again this year. Tonight, I’m going to try to see Gomez, but might not, because who starts a rock show at 6pm?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
World Cup Predictions
I haven’t been able to watch too much of the World Cup so far because it falls during my workday, but here are some predictions anyways.
England will not win the World Cup. The only reason I say this is because their fans seem to have the same mentality as fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Charitably, blind optimism, less charitably, denial.
I’m rooting for Argentina again, which I think I’ve done since around 1994, when I was swayed by their cool blue jerseys, and old Disney cartoons that made me think everyone in the country was a cowboy.
England will not win the World Cup. The only reason I say this is because their fans seem to have the same mentality as fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Charitably, blind optimism, less charitably, denial.
I’m rooting for Argentina again, which I think I’ve done since around 1994, when I was swayed by their cool blue jerseys, and old Disney cartoons that made me think everyone in the country was a cowboy.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Sushi and Tit for Tat
Since I’m ostensibly thinking about evolution a lot of the time, I started thinking about how I decide where to shop and eat in terms of game theory. I think that, when I’m in the process of deciding which restaurants to go to, or which airline to fly, or any decision like that, I play a pretty standard strategy of Tit-for-Tat.
A lot of evolutionary game theory is based on trying to answer questions relating to the evolution of cooperation. Cooperation at first seems counterintuitive from an evolutionary perspective: selection acts on organisms, and organisms that are selfish will generally end up with more resources than organisms that are unselfish, and so end up having more and better offspring. Selection should then generally favour selfish individuals over altruistic ones.
But altruism, and cooperation between organisms are quite commonly observed. How does this evolve? One classic, and tractable way of approaching the problem is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Briefly, in an iterated game of Prisoner’s Dilemma, two parties are subjected to repeated interactions with each other. Each round, they are able to select a strategy of cooperation or defection. The highest possible reward is for defecting when your partner cooperates, followed by both individuals cooperating, then both individuals defecting, and finally the worst possible outcome, cooperating while your partner defects. The object of the game is to select a strategy that maximizes your individual fitness over time.
The story of the original Prisoner’s Dilemma competition is really quite interesting, but I won’t repeat it here (read about it here if you’re interested). The relevant question is, what is the optimal strategy? If you know that your opponent will always cooperate, the best strategy is to always defect. Similarly, if you know your opponent will always defect, you should always defect too. But what if you don’t have any advance knowledge? What if your opponent’s strategy changes in response to yours? It turns out that a remarkably good strategy is a very simple one: Tit-for-Tat. Simply, a Tit-for-Tat strategy involves cooperating on the first turn, then repeating your opponents last move. If your opponent betrays you, betray them back next time. Tit-for-Tat is an evolutionarily stable strategy (or ESS), implying that a whole population playing this strategy cannot be invaded by individuals playing any other strategy.
Back to me and shopping. I was thinking that I’m just very boring and stuck in a rut of only going to a few places. I’ll give new places a chance, and if I enjoy them, I’ll return. As long as I keep having good experiences, I keep returning. But, if I’m unsatisfied, I don’t get mad, I just never return. So if I’m really playing Tit-for-Tat, it would seem that to get me back as a customer, a business would have to do something for me - a free pizza, or something like that. But even if I was offered something, I might just cynically take their offer, then never return anyways. So perhaps my strategy is “Cooperate until defected upon, then always defect, regardless of whether the opponent cooperates or defects”.
I’m not sure the analogy completely holds up - as a consumer, I usually have quite a bit of prior knowledge about a service before I enter the store. So I don’t just go out and try everything once, then only return to the places I like. Also, I have the advantage of knowing how likely I am to interact with that business in the future. In an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game, the players don’t know how many times they’ll interact in the future, otherwise defecting on the last turn is always the best strategy.
So maybe I am stuck in a rut of having a few favourite haunts. But at least this lets me feel like I’m just being strategic.
EDIT: There was an actual point to titling this post "Sushi and Tit for Tat", though I forgot about it when I actually wrote the post. The sushi place I've been going to recently always tosses in a few extra cucumber or avocado rolls. Awesome! Last time, however, they didn't. Do I keep going back, or have they betrayed me?
A lot of evolutionary game theory is based on trying to answer questions relating to the evolution of cooperation. Cooperation at first seems counterintuitive from an evolutionary perspective: selection acts on organisms, and organisms that are selfish will generally end up with more resources than organisms that are unselfish, and so end up having more and better offspring. Selection should then generally favour selfish individuals over altruistic ones.
But altruism, and cooperation between organisms are quite commonly observed. How does this evolve? One classic, and tractable way of approaching the problem is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Briefly, in an iterated game of Prisoner’s Dilemma, two parties are subjected to repeated interactions with each other. Each round, they are able to select a strategy of cooperation or defection. The highest possible reward is for defecting when your partner cooperates, followed by both individuals cooperating, then both individuals defecting, and finally the worst possible outcome, cooperating while your partner defects. The object of the game is to select a strategy that maximizes your individual fitness over time.
The story of the original Prisoner’s Dilemma competition is really quite interesting, but I won’t repeat it here (read about it here if you’re interested). The relevant question is, what is the optimal strategy? If you know that your opponent will always cooperate, the best strategy is to always defect. Similarly, if you know your opponent will always defect, you should always defect too. But what if you don’t have any advance knowledge? What if your opponent’s strategy changes in response to yours? It turns out that a remarkably good strategy is a very simple one: Tit-for-Tat. Simply, a Tit-for-Tat strategy involves cooperating on the first turn, then repeating your opponents last move. If your opponent betrays you, betray them back next time. Tit-for-Tat is an evolutionarily stable strategy (or ESS), implying that a whole population playing this strategy cannot be invaded by individuals playing any other strategy.
Back to me and shopping. I was thinking that I’m just very boring and stuck in a rut of only going to a few places. I’ll give new places a chance, and if I enjoy them, I’ll return. As long as I keep having good experiences, I keep returning. But, if I’m unsatisfied, I don’t get mad, I just never return. So if I’m really playing Tit-for-Tat, it would seem that to get me back as a customer, a business would have to do something for me - a free pizza, or something like that. But even if I was offered something, I might just cynically take their offer, then never return anyways. So perhaps my strategy is “Cooperate until defected upon, then always defect, regardless of whether the opponent cooperates or defects”.
I’m not sure the analogy completely holds up - as a consumer, I usually have quite a bit of prior knowledge about a service before I enter the store. So I don’t just go out and try everything once, then only return to the places I like. Also, I have the advantage of knowing how likely I am to interact with that business in the future. In an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game, the players don’t know how many times they’ll interact in the future, otherwise defecting on the last turn is always the best strategy.
So maybe I am stuck in a rut of having a few favourite haunts. But at least this lets me feel like I’m just being strategic.
EDIT: There was an actual point to titling this post "Sushi and Tit for Tat", though I forgot about it when I actually wrote the post. The sushi place I've been going to recently always tosses in a few extra cucumber or avocado rolls. Awesome! Last time, however, they didn't. Do I keep going back, or have they betrayed me?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Thoughts on Writing About Music
I have a few entries on music that are stewing around in the back of my mind right now, and that may eventually get put up here. But thinking about those entries, and starting to write them, got me thinking about what I want to write about when I write about music.
I don’t think I’d be very good as an “objective” reviewer of music, and that’s not really my interest anyways. One of the writers that I’ve read for a few years online (Caryn Rose, formerly of 5h, now of jukeboxgraduate) once wrote something about how she wasn’t writing about music per se, she was writing about listening to music. That’s what I’d like to do here. Not an attempt at objectivity or ranking, but something much more subjective: how does it make me feel when I hear a song, what memories get dragged out, and does it make me tap my feet?
The first album I was going to write about was Dylan’s Blood on the Tracks, but that one is cutting a little close to home right now. I’ve moved from “Simple Twist of Fate” and “You’re A Big Girl Now”, going briefly through “Idiot Wind”, and settled in now at “If You See Her, Say Hello” and “Buckets of Rain”, thanks for asking.
Instead I’d like to write about Pearl Jam, and their new album. This post will either eventually be complemented by a bunch of others, or will stand here alone mocking me! The plan is to go through the new album, track by track, with a few autobiographical detours thrown in as necessary.
I don’t think I’d be very good as an “objective” reviewer of music, and that’s not really my interest anyways. One of the writers that I’ve read for a few years online (Caryn Rose, formerly of 5h, now of jukeboxgraduate) once wrote something about how she wasn’t writing about music per se, she was writing about listening to music. That’s what I’d like to do here. Not an attempt at objectivity or ranking, but something much more subjective: how does it make me feel when I hear a song, what memories get dragged out, and does it make me tap my feet?
The first album I was going to write about was Dylan’s Blood on the Tracks, but that one is cutting a little close to home right now. I’ve moved from “Simple Twist of Fate” and “You’re A Big Girl Now”, going briefly through “Idiot Wind”, and settled in now at “If You See Her, Say Hello” and “Buckets of Rain”, thanks for asking.
Instead I’d like to write about Pearl Jam, and their new album. This post will either eventually be complemented by a bunch of others, or will stand here alone mocking me! The plan is to go through the new album, track by track, with a few autobiographical detours thrown in as necessary.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Buying me off: Cheap and easy!
A few friends and I received free tickets to see Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, the other night. I think the idea behind giving free tickets to people working in the sciences is that we’ll convince all our friends and acquaintances that it’s a really important, compelling, and scientifically rigorous movie. Since I’m easily bought, and the movie really was good, I don’t feel bad saying: This is a really important, compelling, and scientifically sound movie. Go see it if you get a chance.
The film focusses on Gore’s efforts to educate people about the global warming crisis, mainly by depicting scenes from a slideshow Gore regularly gives on the topic. The biggest potential stumbling-block for the film is that it’s as much about Gore and his work as it is about global warming. The presentation on global warming is interspersed with vignettes from Gore’s life, and travels, including stories about his family, his political career, and his failed presidential campaign. While I (and my friends) thought this approach might be at best a distraction from the movie’s message, and at worst a campaign ad for Gore ‘08, it actually serves the film quite well. Each story from Gore’s life serves to underline just why Gore has dedicated so much time to the issue, and why warming really is a moral issue that should transcend political or economical concerns.
As someone who’s seen more than his fair share of talks on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming, it’s really easy for the material to come off as either terribly boring if it’s presented poorly, or terribly depressing if it’s presented well. One of the real achievements of the movie is in how it conveys the seriousness of global warming, while maintaining a sense of optimism and determination. Previous “insoluble” problems like ozone pollution have indeed been tackled, and at much less cost than doomsayers initially predicted.
The direction of the film is quite good, with many of the vignettes having a real autumnal quality to them. Though autumnal themes and 3/4 time are two of my main weaknesses, it’s still good. The most similar examples I can think of in tone are (cheesily enough) the voiceover monologues of Galadriel at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring, and Private Witt’s voiceovers from “The Thin Red Line”.
As several other reviews I’ve looked at have noted, it’s really easy to ask at the end of the film: What might have been? What if the US had a president who really did care about science and the environment? Though I can’t imagine how he did it, Gore seems to be at peace with himself, and ready to move on. He’s doing a noble thing.
Obligatory Mac nerdness: Gore uses PowerBooks and Keynote throughout the film, which makes sense, since he’s on the board at Apple. They’ve put up a key to "An Inconvenient Truth" at their site .
The film focusses on Gore’s efforts to educate people about the global warming crisis, mainly by depicting scenes from a slideshow Gore regularly gives on the topic. The biggest potential stumbling-block for the film is that it’s as much about Gore and his work as it is about global warming. The presentation on global warming is interspersed with vignettes from Gore’s life, and travels, including stories about his family, his political career, and his failed presidential campaign. While I (and my friends) thought this approach might be at best a distraction from the movie’s message, and at worst a campaign ad for Gore ‘08, it actually serves the film quite well. Each story from Gore’s life serves to underline just why Gore has dedicated so much time to the issue, and why warming really is a moral issue that should transcend political or economical concerns.
As someone who’s seen more than his fair share of talks on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming, it’s really easy for the material to come off as either terribly boring if it’s presented poorly, or terribly depressing if it’s presented well. One of the real achievements of the movie is in how it conveys the seriousness of global warming, while maintaining a sense of optimism and determination. Previous “insoluble” problems like ozone pollution have indeed been tackled, and at much less cost than doomsayers initially predicted.
The direction of the film is quite good, with many of the vignettes having a real autumnal quality to them. Though autumnal themes and 3/4 time are two of my main weaknesses, it’s still good. The most similar examples I can think of in tone are (cheesily enough) the voiceover monologues of Galadriel at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring, and Private Witt’s voiceovers from “The Thin Red Line”.
As several other reviews I’ve looked at have noted, it’s really easy to ask at the end of the film: What might have been? What if the US had a president who really did care about science and the environment? Though I can’t imagine how he did it, Gore seems to be at peace with himself, and ready to move on. He’s doing a noble thing.
Obligatory Mac nerdness: Gore uses PowerBooks and Keynote throughout the film, which makes sense, since he’s on the board at Apple. They’ve put up a key to "An Inconvenient Truth" at their site .
We Should Spend More Time Together in Crowds
Interpreting a person’s intent from email messages has always frustrated me. All sorts of nuances present in normal conversation are lost, and internet-speak only makes it worse. I recently learned a few of my friends have a pretty good triple-tag-team textual parsing thing going on to try to interpret some of the emails they get from guys. So I thought it would be fun to write ambiguous emails, specifically designed to vex them. Here’s my first shot:
From: Rod
Subject: We should spend more time together in large crowds
Date: June 3, 2006 8:26:13 PM EDT (CA)
To: X
Dear X,
I've really enjoyed the time we've spent together recently. You're like a sister to me (a sexy sister!). We should definitely hang out more - do you like Indian food? I know a really great place, but we'd have to go in a group of at least eight. Do you have many cute friends?
Oh yeah, I couldn't stop thinking about that story you told me the other day - It made me laugh, and I was thinking about you all day. The girl I was talking to at the gym thought it was totally hilarious too.
Anyways, I do think we should get together sometime soon and talk - maybe coffee? Or maybe drinks? I don't want you to think I'm moving too fast, but...
Kind regards,
Rod
p.s. My old friends Pat and Terry might be in town too - would it be cool if they came along?
I Don't Know What I Expected
I had a bit of an “Arrested Development” moment yesterday in the lab. There’s this scene where Michael opens his freezer to find a bag labelled “Dead dove. Do not eat”. He opens the bag, closes it, and says “I don’t know what I expected”.
So there I was, opening a small container of dried salmon sperm. I don’t know just what I expected it to look like. But if you can imagine what a bunch of dried salmon sperm would look like, that’s pretty much it.
So there I was, opening a small container of dried salmon sperm. I don’t know just what I expected it to look like. But if you can imagine what a bunch of dried salmon sperm would look like, that’s pretty much it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)