(Software) Industry prefers fluid intelligence. But not for the reasons you think

Sorry for the click bait title.

The following lines of thought must be read with sarcasm:

Crystallized intelligence is so last generation. Who needs wisdom and experience when there is an endless supply of novel never-seen-before problems to solve in any industry?

Nobody thinks like this.

Younger minds abundant in fluid intelligence are cheaper to hire than older minds high in crystallized intelligence. That is why interviews test for fluid intelligence; industries are trying to reduce human resource costs.

This is close enough but overly academic. It puts effect before cause.

Let us simulate fluid intelligence using crystallized intelligence gained from solving 2n competitive programming problems.

This is the Asian solution. It is an arms race between candidates trying to solve a larger number of type of problems than the interviewers can invent, and therefore developing enough crystallized intelligence to solve any fluid intelligence problem that is currently in trend in all interviews

I think the truth is there is simply too many people queuing up to be hired by well known and cool-to-brag-about brands.

There aren’t enough new problems to solve that demands us throwing away all human experience and wisdom. In fact newer problems often tend to require older solutions. That doesn’t mean I am endorsing the Asian solution of solving all types of problems so as to “crack the coding interview” given by cool employers.

The industry resolves high supply of human resources by inventing arbitrary but seemingly relevant challenges to filter out most of the developers. Most of the developers are of similar quality anyway. At the face of complexity all human minds are roughly equal probably because all optimal solution to any random complex problem is roughly of the same quality (like the No free lunch theorem). Also did I mention that no one needs a drill, people just need holes. So by being exceedingly good at drilling holes you can be only as good as another exceedingly good hole driller. May be you should make a better drill and sell it to ever increasing number of people trying to become hole drillers.

At least the software industry and to some extent biotech is held up by the large number of startups that fail. Startups never give 6 rounds of competitive programming interviews but they don’t pay as low as a burger joint. When suddenly rich people feel like they don’t want to bet their low interest money, on 1-in-10 chance for 100x gains from a startup, then we will find a large number of unemployed programmers trying to solve ever-harder-to-solve Kafkaesque puzzles at a few big tech giants that remain.

Penrose argument

Here is Penrose argument in the first few minutes of this video summarized to the best of my ability/understanding:

  1. Godel’s Incompleteness / Halting problem etc, shows there are truths which cannot be mechanically derived using an algorithm or a finite set of axioms. e.g. claims like all even numbers greater than 4 can be written as a sum of two prime numbers (a.k.a Goldbach’s conjecture).
  2. All of the truths in Physics can be mechanically derived using an algorithm. e.g. future/past/present state of a quantum mechanical/relativistic/classical system.
  3. Let us assume our minds use Physics
  4. But our minds can derive truths which cannot be mechanically derived using an algorithm or a finite set of axioms. e.g. claims similar to Goldbach’s conjecture which have already been proven.
  5. Therefore whatever process our minds are using to prove such things, and derive such knowledge must not be using Physics, because if it were using Physics then such a mental process could be mechanically derived using an algorithm, because Physics can be mechanically derived using an algorithm. Therefore our assumption 3, is wrong.

Culture as predictability of social experience

Alan Turing once wondered whether there could exist a program that could tell if any program from the set of all programs (and inputs) would halt or not. He then tracked the behavior of the hypothetical halting predictor across a set of all programs (and inputs) and showed that the halting predictor predicted incorrectly for a program that was not part of the set of all programs (and inputs). It is funny how a program that is not part of the set of all programs (and inputs) could exist. But it could and he showed a method to generate such a program using a method called cantor’s diagonalization. Essentially he showed one such program existed by showing that the program which flipped the output of the halting predictor trying to predict its own behavior did not exist in the infinite set of all programs (and inputs)

One conclusion was that there are not universal analytical (or even algorithmic) shortcuts/solutions to all problems that can be run on a computer. Sometimes the only way to find out something is to execute the plan, and just wait long enough to see if it works eventually, and just give up if it takes too long, but don’t give up too early.

Another conclusion is that any prediction mechanism or theory you have will only work most of the time, and there will be truths and futures which have to be discovered by waiting it out if necessary for a very long time to unfold.

Among many things the human mind does one is to assign intentions to things like cats, or people. Not everything ever really has intentions (e.g. volcanos are not mountain gods). But sometimes it is more fun, relaxing, to think they have intentions. But other people also assign intentions to your self, and sometimes it is necessary to dupe (hide from) their system/theory of assigning intentions to us.

And this is were predictability of intentions derives its utility from. It is desirable that human intentions are predictable because it helps us have an easier way to live (i.e. eat, drink, move, be free, explore). But there are people who exploit this desire of predictability of intentions to manipulate, hurt and destroy people (a.k.a criminals, psychopaths). They have to be removed to increase predictability.

So in a low crime city, I can wait for a bus, know it will arrive in a few minutes, and that driver will drop me off along a route near a diner where I can eat in exchange for a known amount of money, and come back safely.

This is what many people call a high trust society.

On the other hand in a low trust society, I will have to wait for an arbitrary amount of time to hitchhiker in a stranger’s car who might drop on any diners they might find along the way, where if they are willing to exchange food for money, they might end up charging an exorbitant amount of my assets as barter.

There is nothing wrong in wanting to live in a high trust society and that is what we call culture. Culture is sometimes arbitrary. Sometimes you are expected to engage in rituals like greeting the waitress to get food. But if you do not signal using such arbitrary rituals you are a suspect for dangerous behavior.

Solutions to 20 Intermediate Haskell Exercises

class Fluffy f where
  furry :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

-- Exercise 1
-- Relative Difficulty: 1
instance Fluffy [] where
--furry :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
  furry _ [] = []
  furry f (x:xs) = f x : furry f xs

-- Exercise 2
-- Relative Difficulty: 1
instance Fluffy Maybe where
--furry :: (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b
  furry _ Nothing = Nothing
  furry f (Just a) = Just $ f a

-- Exercise 3
-- Relative Difficulty: 5
instance Fluffy ((->) t) where
--furry :: (a -> b) -> (t -> a) -> (t -> b)
  furry = (.)

newtype EitherLeft b a = EitherLeft (Either a b)
newtype EitherRight a b = EitherRight (Either a b)

-- Exercise 4
-- Relative Difficulty: 5
instance Fluffy (EitherLeft t) where
--furry :: (a -> b) -> EitherLeft t a -> EitherLeft t b
  furry f (EitherLeft (Left a)) = EitherLeft $ Left $ f a
  furry _ (EitherLeft (Right t)) = EitherLeft $ Right t

-- Exercise 5
-- Relative Difficulty: 5
instance Fluffy (EitherRight t) where
--furry :: (a -> b) -> EitherRight t a -> EitherRight t b
  furry f (EitherRight (Right a)) = EitherRight $ Right $ f a
  furry _ (EitherRight (Left a)) = EitherRight $ Left a

class Misty m where
  banana :: (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b
  unicorn :: a -> m a
  -- Exercise 6
  -- Relative Difficulty: 3
  -- (use banana and/or unicorn)
  furry' :: (a -> b) -> m a -> m b
  furry' f ma = banana (unicorn . f) ma

-- Exercise 7
-- Relative Difficulty: 2
instance Misty [] where
--banana :: (a -> [b]) -> [a] -> [b]
  banana f = concat . map f
--unicorn :: a -> [a]
  unicorn = (:[])

-- Exercise 8
-- Relative Difficulty: 2
instance Misty Maybe where
--banana :: (a -> Maybe b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b
  banana _ Nothing = Nothing
  banana f (Just a) = f a
--unicorn :: a -> Maybe a
  unicorn = Just

-- Exercise 9
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
instance Misty ((->) t) where
--banana :: (a -> t -> b) -> (t -> a) -> (t -> b)
  banana atb ta = \t -> atb (ta t) t
--unicorn :: a -> (t -> a)
  unicorn a = \t -> a

-- Exercise 10
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
instance Misty (EitherLeft t) where
--banana :: (a -> EitherLeft b) -> EitherLeft t a -> EitherLeft t b
  banana f (EitherLeft (Left a)) = f a
  banana _ (EitherLeft (Right b)) = EitherLeft $ Right b
--unicorn :: a -> EitherLeft t a
  unicorn = EitherLeft . Left

-- Exercise 11
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
instance Misty (EitherRight t) where
--banana :: (a -> EitherRight t b) -> EitherRight t a -> EitherRight t b
  banana f (EitherRight (Right a)) = f a
  banana f (EitherRight (Left b)) = EitherRight $ Left b
--unicorn :: a -> EitherRight t a
  unicorn = EitherRight . Right

-- Exercise 12
-- Relative Difficulty: 3
jellybean :: (Misty m) => m (m a) -> m a
jellybean = banana id

-- Exercise 13
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
apple :: (Misty m) => m a -> m (a -> b) -> m b
apple ma mab = banana (\a -> banana (\ab -> unicorn (ab a)) mab) ma

-- Exercise 14
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
moppy :: (Misty m) => [a] -> (a -> m b) -> m [b]
moppy [] _ = unicorn []
moppy (a:as) f = banana (\b -> banana (\bs -> unicorn (b:bs)) (moppy as f)) (f a)

-- Exercise 15
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
-- (bonus: use moppy)
sausage :: (Misty m) => [m a] -> m [a]
sausage mas = moppy mas id 

-- Exercise 16
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
-- (bonus: use apple + furry')
banana2 :: (Misty m) => (a -> b -> c) -> m a -> m b -> m c
banana2 f ma mb = apple mb $ furry' f ma

-- Exercise 17
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
-- (bonus: use apple + banana2)
banana3 :: (Misty m) => (a -> b -> c -> d) -> m a -> m b -> m c -> m d
banana3 f ma mb mc = apple mc $ banana2 f ma mb

-- Exercise 18
-- Relative Difficulty: 6
-- (bonus: use apple + banana3)
banana4 :: (Misty m) => (a -> b -> c -> d -> e) -> m a -> m b -> m c -> m d -> m e
banana4 f ma mb mc md = apple md $ banana3 f ma mb mc

newtype State s a = State {
  state :: (s -> (s, a))

-- Exercise 19
-- Relative Difficulty: 9
instance Fluffy (State s) where
--furry :: (a -> b) -> State s a -> State s b
  furry f (State ssa) = State $ \s ->
    let (s', a) = ssa s
    in (s', f a)

-- Exercise 20
-- Relative Difficulty: 10
instance Misty (State s) where
--banana :: (a -> State s b) -> State s a -> State s b
  banana f (State ssa) = State $ \s ->
    let (s', a) = ssa s
        (State ssb) = f a
        in ssb s'
--unicorn :: a -> State s a
  unicorn a = State $ \s -> (s, a)

I solve this exercise to remember Haskell once again after not using it for a while. I notice as I solve it more and more my style of thought is beginning to change.

War never changes

Sorry for reusing an old meme.

I had heard from my parents when they were young that war used to be between communist-Osho-worshiping-atheists-having-sex-orgies (bad) vs. god-fearing-Americans-who-went-to-the-moon (good). When I was young I thought the war was between liberal-science-loving-atheists (good) vs. conservative young-earth-creationist-christians (bad). Then the war became briefly about libertarians-objectivist-ancaps (good) vs. statists (bad) around the financial crisis. Now the war is between inter-sectional-LGBTQQIAP-climate-justice-seekers (bad) and coalition of conservatives-had-somethings-right-liberals (good).

As I grew older I find myself allowing for the possibility that many things I once ignored as conspiracy theories actually happened or is true. Among these are:

  • HIV causes AIDS theory denial: I used to think AIDS denialists were the worst kind of conspiracy theorists who hurt people, but after reading Nobel laureates Kary Mullis and AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg I think they raise good points. Moreover recent hysteria like Zika-Microcephaly links and Ebola-hysteria seems to follow a similar pattern
  • Geocentrism: Geocentrism is not same as flat earth theory which is probably promoted to muddy the waters. I used to think the Geocentrism debate was settled long ago. But then I heard about recently observed violations in Copernican principle which makes me wonder whether the tychonian geocentric model may be feasible. Modern Geocentrism explains fermis paradox, lack of sagnac interferometer experiments on other planets for measurable aether winds, red shift of all stars without changes to space-time metric tensors, dark matter without using exotic matter.
  • Satanic Panic: This panic was about children being abused sexually by elites in 1990s, and there is some truth to it, if we think about all the coded languages in leaked Podesta emails in wikileaks, NXIVM cult being involved in child trafficking, Jeffrey Epstein’s child abuse and trafficking, censorship of it from ABC TV channel,
  • Climate Change Denial: I was always a climate change denialist even when I believed science was very close to the truth.
  • Roswell Incident: My current belief about Roswell is that of what Ed Westcott with a Q clearance told Annie Jacobsen about Stalin sending surgically modified children to USA after the nuclear tests, to scare the Americans in a War of the Worlds type scenario.
  • Historical Jesus: I used to be a Jesus was a myth kind of guy after listening to people like Robert Price. But after reading James the Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenmann, Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill, and e-books by Eric Zuesse I think the historical Jesus was probably the leader of a low-status Jewish group called “The Poor” a.k.a Zealots a.k.a Sicaris who rebelled against Rome after the Maccabeean (high-status Jews) style rebellion against the Roman polytheistic corruption of Jewish rituals, failed. After Jesus died, roman propagandists like Saul (a.k.a Paul) and Jewish turncoats like Josephus corrupted Judaism in an attempt to make it more pro-Roman.
  • Whites vs Jews: At various times I have sided with many sides of this probably eternal conflict. As of now I side with the Jews, because I have seen Whites up close, and I know they are to be blamed for what the Jews are doing to them in retaliation for all suffering Jews experienced under Whites of which there are many probably since the Bronze Age. What I have realized is Whites have always had the best propaganda, and may be it is easier to believe them because of their White color.
  • Islam: These days I think of Islam as copycat Judaism who are leading a Sicari revolt against the modern Rome a.k.a the anglo-american-european-progressive establishment.
  • Communism: This is a godless/secular version of the Sicari revolt against Rome which can be used to mobilize smarter people like the Whites and the Asians and may be cargo culters of other races.
  • Machiavellians: I used to think they are the bad guys. But now I think they are the “good” we deserve, and the various factions Utopians are the real evil doers who deceive the plebs by selling them -isms which make the plebs fight each other so that one -ism can install elites after defeating another -ism.
  • Science: I used to think Science is the only method we know to take closer to the truth. But now I think Science is a clique which seeks grants by relying on publication bias and replication crisis to create politically correct truths.
  • Liberals: they are just secular puritan sexual deviants who pretend to be holier than thou so as gain higher status in any group. I used to think they are the good guys.
  • End of History: History is just beginning.

I have learned from these changes of heart I had that, there is a great inversion that underlies reality. Everything you think worth doing may not be so, you should be humble enough to change your views often.

The nature of war as I understand it now has been constant since at least the Bronze Age. There is nothing noble about the Noble Savage or the Rational modernist. Everybody is a sinner, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Rule by riot

The international world order has the ability to create riots and protests anywhere.

Whenever a government does not play by the rules of this international order, the NGOs step in to create these riots.

Western media covers these riots selectively by only showing instances of police violence. They leave out opinions of silent majority, and coverage of rioter violence.

In a world a were total war is unthinkable due to lose-lose weapons, the only war we can engage in are protests, proxy wars, assassinations, and guerilla wars.

Allegory behind the movie “In the shadow of the moon”

The movie is about a Time Traveller serial killer going back in time to kill white nationalists so as to avoid a future civil war that tears down the United States of America.

We see the story through the life of a policeman whose granddaughter is the serial killer mentioned above. Every 9 years through some phenomena about a moon, and a time machine invented in the future the granddaughter goes all the way back to 2006, 1997, 1988, to kill people involved in an anti-globalist white nationalists before they could even spread their ideas. Her grandfather initially hunts the serial killer down as the decades go by, until it is revealed to him the serial killer is his own grand daughter.

The granddaughter timetraveller is also of mixed race (black/white) and is born to her mother who is the daughter of the policeman whose wife died giving birth to the daughter.

The allegory is that the social justice warriors are going back through our internet history to find any shred of political incorrectness in the past with respect to the present, in the name of saving the future from white nationalists who will destroy USA.

I am a brown guy and while I dislike the whites (especially the French) because they are like North Indians (I will explain this later), I also realize that people who censor ideas from our past, judge people now based on their ideas of their youth, people who rewrite histories in the name of securing our future are dangerous and evil.

Identity of Annie Jacobsen’s Source with a Q Clearance for the Chapter 21 of her book about Area 51

TL;DR: It is Ed Wescott. Read on for how I reached this conclusion.

In Joe Rogan Experience Episode 1299, Annie Jacobsen, an American investigative journalist, author (and 2016 Pulitzer Prize finalist in history), mentions at 9:05 (Youtube timestamp) that her Source with a Q Clearance, was and I paraphrase:

A major player in the Manhattan Project. He went on and worked in the atomic energy commission. There’s a wing of a museum named after him. His accolades his awards were so extraordinary. He recently died, and gave me permission to write about him after his death.

The Source told her that the Roswell incident was Stalin sending surgically modified children in experimental Nazi hovering discs into American territory to create a War of the Worlds type panic inside USA. Stalin did it also to demonstrate that USSR was ahead of USA in aerospace technologies, although USSR did not have the Atom Bomb, while having better Black Propaganda capabilities.

The Source also confessed that US Government (i.e. DOE a.k.a Atomic Energy Commission a.k.a NNSS) also had done surgical/genetic experimentation on mentally challenged children to see if they can replicate what Stalin did.

Annie Jacobsen does not reveal the name of her Source, and saves it for her next book (maybe). But given the information above I was able to mine WikiData and come up with an answer. Here is how I did it:

First I wrote a SPARQL Query for Wikidata Query Service (WDQS)

SELECT ?person ?personLabel ?death
  ?person wdt:P1344 wd:Q127050.
  ?person wdt:P570 ?death
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

What it does is it finds people involved in the Manhattan project and sorts them by how recently they died (because Annie said the Source died recently). The result set is quite large but I limited the number of results below:

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q376617Geoffrey Chew2019-04-11T00:00:00Z
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q666681Ed Westcott2019-03-29T00:00:00Z
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q64188Roy J. Glauber2018-12-26T00:00:00Z

Now all I needed to find was someone in the above list who worked for the Atomic Energy Comission. Ed Wescott’s Wikipedia page says he worked for the Atomic Energy Comission. There is also an museum which opened in 1949 about the Manhattan Project, now called the American Museum for Science and Energy which is very fond of Ed Wescott. Ed Westcott’s wikipedia page also talks about museum sections dedicated to his work:

The first museum exhibition devoted to Westcott’s work was organized by the Children’s Museum of Oak Ridge in 1981, entitled “Oak Ridge Seen 1943–1947: 20 Photographs by Edward Westcott”. In 2005, the Ewing Gallery of Art and Architecture at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville mounted an exhibition of his photos, entitled “Through the Lens of Ed Westcott: A Photographic History of World War II’s Secret City”. The American Museum of Science and Energyand the Children’s Museum of Oak Ridge both have exhibits devoted to Westcott and his work,[9][15] in addition to displaying his photos as part of exhibits on the city’s history. A selection of works from the Ewing Gallery exhibit is now a touring museum exhibit.[16]


So I conclude that Ed Wescott was person who knew about American experiments on mutating/mutilating mentally challenged childen.

I hope my blog will not get taken down for exposing the identity of a person with an Above Top Secret, Q Clearance who knew about the crimes that USA/DOE/AEC did by experimenting on children. I will take a backup of the blog just in case, after I publish this post. Please don’t dox me. I am just a loser on the Internet. Please don’t drone me either. I hope I am just being paranoid.