Profile cover photo
Profile photo
KENNETH UDUT
7,035 followers -
239-465-9291 Affordable Trapping - Nuisance W/ildlife Animal Removal Control - and http://free.naplesplus.us - Naples, FL
239-465-9291 Affordable Trapping - Nuisance W/ildlife Animal Removal Control - and http://free.naplesplus.us - Naples, FL

7,035 followers
About
KENNETH's posts

Post has attachment
It is what it is. When it's not what it is, it is what it is, even when it's not what it is. #logic 
Photo

Old Hacker Story. the Magic / More Magic Switch. #nerdlore - read this story long ago and was happy to see it referenced again.

A Story About ‘Magic'

Some years ago, I (GLS) was snooping around in the cabinets that housed the MIT AI Lab's PDP-10, and noticed a little switch glued to the frame of one cabinet. It was obviously a homebrew job, added by one of the lab's hardware hackers (no one knows who).

You don't touch an unknown switch on a computer without knowing what it does, because you might crash the computer. The switch was labeled in a most unhelpful way. It had two positions, and scrawled in pencil on the metal switch body were the words ‘magic' and ‘more magic'. The switch was in the ‘more magic' position.

I called another hacker over to look at it. He had never seen the switch before either. Closer examination revealed that the switch had only one wire running to it! The other end of the wire did disappear into the maze of wires inside the computer, but it's a basic fact of electricity that a switch can't do anything unless there are two wires connected to it. This switch had a wire connected on one side and no wire on its other side.

It was clear that this switch was someone's idea of a silly joke. Convinced by our reasoning that the switch was inoperative, we flipped it. The computer instantly crashed.

Imagine our utter astonishment. We wrote it off as coincidence, but nevertheless restored the switch to the ‘more magic’ position before reviving the computer.

A year later, I told this story to yet another hacker, David Moon as I recall. He clearly doubted my sanity, or suspected me of a supernatural belief in the power of this switch, or perhaps thought I was fooling him with a bogus saga. To prove it to him, I showed him the very switch, still glued to the cabinet frame with only one wire connected to it, still in the ‘more magic’ p

We scrutinized the switch and its lone connection, and found that the other end of the wire, though connected to the computer wiring, was connected to a ground pin. That clearly made the switch doubly useless: not only was it electrically nonoperative, but it was connected to a place that couldn't affect anything anyway. So we flipped the switch.

The computer promptly crashed.

This time we ran for Richard Greenblatt, a long-time MIT hacker, who was close at hand. He had never noticed the switch before, either. He inspected it, concluded it was useless, got some diagonal cutters and diked it out. We then revived the computer and it has run fine ever since.

We still don't know how the switch crashed the machine. There is a theory that some circuit near the ground pin was marginal, and flipping the switch changed the electrical capacitance enough to upset the circuit as millionth-of-a-second pulses went through it. But we'll never know for sure; all we can really say is that the switch was magic.

I still have that switch in my basement. Maybe I'm silly, but I usually keep it set on ‘more magic’.

1994: Another explanation of this story has since been offered. Note that the switch body was metal. Suppose that the non-connected side of the switch was connected to the switch body (usually the body is connected to a separate earth lug, but there are exceptions). The body is connected to the computer case, which is, presumably, grounded. Now the circuit ground within the machine isn't necessarily at the same potential as the case ground, so flipping the switch connected the circuit ground to the case ground, causing a voltage drop/jump which reset the machine. This was probably discovered by someone who found out the hard way that there was a potential difference between the two, and who then wired in the switch as a joke

https://web.archive.org/web/20160305105322/http://ftp.sunet.se/jargon/html/magic-story.htmlosition

Post has attachment
FMD Functional development in Excel [Lee Benfield 2009] Zeroth Order Functional

0 is in his own little world. One day, that changes.
1 is fine as long as everything's fine but if he has a moment of doubt, he becomes 2
2's battles leads to
3 and 3 should be the end of it right? It's a triangle, everything goes back to the beginning. It even looks like a zero. But it's out of balance almost always. There's a left and right hand to Triangle which leads us to 4.
4 it's nicely balanced.

So what's up with 5?

Post has attachment
so, had dream. wasn't quite like this but as close as i can render in a few minutes.
Photo

Post has attachment
If someone says, "It's unknowable", don't tell Genichi Taguchi.

When dealing with quality to specifications, you can have several views of "tolerance". One, which is part of the American tradition "Everything within these goalposts is good, outside is bad."

But Taguchi took a more systemic view and realized that if you include otherwise "nuisance factors", you realize that those nuisance factors are actually important. You may find your product "good enough" but if your customer expects something a little better than that, it'll come back to affect you.

"Robust Parameter Design" is one of his strongest accomplishments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_parameter_design

Maximum resolution with minimum aberration. What's nice about these ideas is that they don't distinguish between "noise" and "variable" yet it's a restricted randomization.
--
Photo

Post has attachment
zoomy2. Testing limits of Mischief-Free. Music is one I found on free music archive, Chris Zabriskie "Is That You or Are You You?"

Post has attachment
Head Gaze tracking with Camera Mouse 2016 with Mischief-Free

Post has attachment
Mengers Sponge. Had some fun. [zoom draw]

All is uncertain.
Are you certain that all is uncertain?
Yes. All is uncertain.
Shouldn't you be uncertain that all is uncertain?
Why would I be uncertain of my uncertainty?
Well, because then perhaps all is certain.
Yes, I'm certain that all is uncertain.
No, I mean if you are uncertain that all is uncertain, doesn't that mean that all might be certain?
If all is certain and I am uncertain, then all isn't certain is it?
Yes, but if all is uncertain and you are certain, then something is certain, meaning all isn't uncertain because you aren't uncertain about all being uncertain, which makes ...
I get it.
Thank you.
...
...
...
Are you certain that you get it now?
...
...
...no.
Good!

Wait while more posts are being loaded