Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jonathan Abbey
Father, Geek
Father, Geek

Jonathan's posts

Post has shared content
Michael Goodwin of Economix Comix lays out the logic, reality, and problems of Obamacare.
An easy to follow cartoon-primer to Obamacare, its pros and cons and history. Look past the screaming we’ve been subjected to and see what all the fuss was about… and was it really worth all the fuss?  Was it ever “communism?”   Or the best Republican proposal in decades?

Post has attachment
It turns out that CO2 increases in the atmosphere actually preceded previous warming rather than following it as previously reported.

Post has attachment
The University of Texas at Austin's slogan is not always so reassuring.

Post has attachment
Who needs jobs in our glorious technological future?

Post has attachment
I started learning French when I was eight, but I can only achieve a proper sounding Bonjour! with a huge amount of focus and effort. I can't imagine how hard it must be to gain native fluency in Mandarin as an adult.

Post has shared content
I am Jon's complete lack of surprise.
The company executives, Mr. Berman said in his speech, must be willing to exploit emotions like fear, greed and anger and turn it against the environmental groups. And major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty,” he said.

Post has attachment
Intel continues to bring UFO alien technology to the world.

Post has shared content
h/t: +Ted Lemon
In grade school, you probably learned about the average, also known as the mean. You may have learned about other numbers, like the median and the mode, which also characterize how things are distributed. These numbers, however, tend to conceal more than they reveal: when you really want to understand something, you look at a curve called the distribution instead. That curve is simply a plot of how often each possible outcome occurs, and all of the numbers above -- numbers called "measures of central tendency" -- can be calculated from that curve, and summarize various aspects of the curve.

The reason that professionals care about the curve more than the numbers is that the curve is full of secrets of its own. One of the most interesting secrets is what's called "universality:" it turns out that there is a very small set of shapes, and almost every distribution curve you actually encounter in the world, whether you're measuring the frequency at which people use words, or the time it takes to get through a checkout line, or the number of marmots in a field, turns out to have one of these shapes. 

(Or more specifically, real distributions are almost always combinations of these shapes, say a bump of one shape here and a curve of another shape there. That always means that two distinct things are going on, each contributing a single shape, and it can be one of the fastest ways to understand how the system is really working.)

Why are distributions more interesting? Apart from being able to read the secrets of their shapes, the problem with just looking at numbers is what they hide. There's an old joke about two guys in a bar in Seattle, grousing about how broke they are, when Bill Gates walks in. One of them pauses for a sec, thinks hard, then jumps up and yells "Drinks are on me, everyone!" His friend asks him, "Are you crazy? I thought you said you were broke!" "No, I just did the math! On the average, everyone in here is a millionaire!"

So let's talk about these shapes a bit more. There are four particularly common shapes. (There are a few others as well, but 99.5% of the time what you see are combinations of these four)

The first is the Gaussian, or bell curve. Gaussians generally happen when there's something that happens roughly the same way every time, and the deviations from that "same way" are completely random and uncorrelated noise. For example, if you measure how long it takes you to walk down the same hallway every day, the distribution curve will probably be a Gaussian. The position of the center of the bell curve tells you the average, and its width tells you how frequent random disruptions are.

The second is the exponential curve. This looks like a sharp spike followed by a decay. (Specifically, a decay shaped like F = e^−(ax), where x is the value that we're measuring, F is the number of times we saw x, and a is a constant) This is most often a sign of queues. For example, if you measure how long it takes to read a small file from a hard disk, and do it over and over again, the frequency distribution of times will look like a Gaussian added to an exponential. Why? Because the time it takes to read from an idle disk is a Gaussian -- there's a random amount of time it takes the head to seek to the right position, and then it takes a constant amount of time to do the reading. However, if the computer is busy, then you have to wait in line before that can start, and it turns out that the distribution of the time it takes to wait in line is almost always an exponential. (That fact is something we regularly use in computing to identify when the problem is that things are getting stuck waiting in line)

The third shape is a power law. This looks sort of like an exponential, but it has a much heavier tail. (The formula is F = (x/x0)^−a, and if you plot it on a log-log chart, it looks like a straight line) Power laws turn out to be extremely universal whenever humans are involved: for example, if you look at a large body of text and ask "what fraction of words show up frequently versus rarely," the shape is a power law, no matter what language. (In that case, a is about 1.8, in case you're curious. Syntax words like "and" and "the" are the most common, obscure nouns like "zymurgy" are among the rare ones, and there's a long tail of words that basically appear only once in a corpus) But power laws show up all over the place: look at the number of pictures people take each week. Look at the number of friends people have. Look at the size of cities. 

It turns out that there are some fairly deep reasons that power laws are so common. For example, imagine you're looking at a network -- say, the phone network, or the network of people's friends. If a network formed by "random attachment," that is, any new node that shows up is equally likely to attach to any other node, then the distribution of how many neighbors everyone has is a Gaussian. But if it forms by "preferential attachment," that is, a newcomer is more likely to attach to someone who already knows a lot of people, then you can show mathematically that you get a power law. Lots of real networks do this: new people in a social group, for example, are more likely to start out by meeting the really gregarious person at the middle.

(This is really important for practical applications, too, because preferential-attachment networks have all sorts of other interesting features. For example, a random-attachment network doesn't become disconnected (no longer joining everyone) until you blow up a lot of links. A preferential-attachment network, on the other hand, can disconnect very quickly if you lose the very central nodes. If your network is the Internet, then you really want to keep things from being disconnected, so it's important to know what parts are the most critical. On the other hand, if your network is the graph of people who were in physical contact with each other (a preferential-attachment network), which also happens to be the graph along which contagious diseases spreads, you might be very interested in making this network disconnect: that tells you that investing your money in making sure that contagious diseases don't spread through the people with the highest number of connections is a much better bet than trying to protect everyone equally. It turns out that immunizing a hermit doesn't do nearly as much as immunizing, say, the janitor of a large building.)

And then there's a fourth common shape, the Tracy-Widom Curve. This one looks sort of like a skewed bell curve, Gaussian on the left and exponential on the right. It shows up all over the place as well, especially when studying systems with a lot of strong interactions amongst themselves. However, we don't really understand why it's so common yet: it's proven a tougher nut to crack than the power law. 

However, there's been some recent progress: it turns out that this curve may be happening whenever there's a certain kind of phase transition behavior in the system, similar to ice melting or water boiling. And this article will tell you more about that.

The key takeaways are:

* Distributions matter! Averages and so on lie, because they hide things. If you really want to understand something, always demand the distribution.

* Distributions always seem to be combinations of a handful of standard shapes. If there's more than one shape in a distribution, you're seeing several different physical processes at once, and each shape tells you a story.

* There are four standard shapes, and we understand three of them pretty well and know how to read stories from them: Gaussians telling you about random events, exponentials about something waiting in line, power laws about humans or biology being somehow involved, or about preferential attachment, or a few other similar things. There's a fourth one which we're only starting to understand, but it keeps showing up, too.

* Statistics is cool, because it reveals the secrets of the universe and helps you fix problems.

Via +Jennifer Ouellette​​.

Post has shared content
I thought he was already out as well, but good for him.
good for him. everyone knew already, but it makes a strong, visible statement that he decided to make a public statement like this, as the CEO of #Apple. #equality FTW!!! #timcook #comingout #itgetsbetter #lgbt #loveislove

Post has shared content
"European robins may maintain quantum entanglement in their eyes a full 20 microseconds longer than the best laboratory systems." "Although robins had no trouble pointing their beaks toward Africa under the influence of Earth’s magnetic field alone, adding a second, shifting field destroyed their inner compasses. That second field was so weak -- less than one-third of 1 percent of Earth's field -- that it could only have influenced a quantum-sensitive system." "They calculated that, in order to be sensitive to such weak fields, entangled states in the birds' eyes must last for at least 100 microseconds, or 0.0001 seconds."
Wait while more posts are being loaded