you don't understand

Ugh, that title sounds like some awful teenager.  Luckily, there no teenagers in this post.

Today I had the opportunity to listen to a guest lecture by the famous machine learning theorist Vladimir Vapnik.  Since he lives locally, I've heard him talk about the same topic three times now: in this class, at the annual NYAS Machine Learning Symposium, and at general Princeton CS Lecture.  (These are more-or-less the slides he used today.)

Warning: this next paragraph is geeky; skip it if you aren't interested.
The theory he presents is interesting, as are the results; he proposes that information other than input and result can be used in training a machine learning algorithm.  The idea is that some description of how we get from input to output, even if the description isn't enough to reproduce the result exactly, helps us learn.   He gives an awesome example of labeling OCR numbers with essentially poetry, describing the personalities of the writers in flowery, adjective-heavy text; each digit in the training set had some text written exclusively for it. He shows that providing that text when training the algorithm (in addition to the input pixels and labeled outputs, of course) results in better OCR recognition than just providing the standard training data exclusively.  Permuting the text associations got rid of the improvement. Crazy stuff.

During the lecture, he said to the class several times "you don't understand."  It wasn't a question, nor did he always attempt to re-explain, perhaps deeming us incapable of understanding those particular points at all.  I've often found that the most brilliant people have a hard time explaining themselves so that everyone can understand--they just can't understand not understanding, and so can't see the path people need to follow in order to obtain understanding.

It seemed like Vapnik has reached a point in his life were he is comfortable with people not understanding him; he's a very well-established individual and is possibly entitled to that luxury.  At this point, it's on us to try and understand him, instead of the usual more balanced responsibilities of teacher and student both needing to do their best to teach and understand, respectively.

That isn't to say that Vapnik isn't a good lecturer; he's fairly clear and entertaining, but there are some details that could use more illumination.  Perhaps I'm not being fair, though, since everything is in contrast to the usual lecturer for the course Rob Schapire, who is possibly the best lecturer I've ever encountered.  I also contrast it to my own teaching, where I've been thinking hard about how to explain simple computer science concepts like objects or static methods to students that have never seen the material or anything like it ever before.  It's a lot of fun, but it's also exhausting to some extent.

Anyway, I find it funny that I felt the need to write a commentary about the teaching style of the lecturer whose talk was entitled Learning with Teacher: Learning using Hidden Information.  Maybe there was something hidden in there...

goodbye, google reader

Last week, Google announced that they were closing up shop on Google Reader.  Earlier this week, I attempted the transition to Feedly, which is a fine service, but I need to re-tweak my reflexes.  Today, they removed Reader from the general "more" dropdown menu, which is exactly what I needed to finalize the transition. 

Feedly isn't quite right for me, at least not yet, so I might end up starting my own RSS/Atom reader projet.  There are all sorts of great machine learning techniques that could be applied to feeds, and I've worked on some myself.  Feeds could also be integrated into a massive life management application that handles email, calendaring, todo lists, etc.

This hypothetical app could spoon feed you exactly what you need when you need it.  For example, I'm not a morning person, and I tend to read a few webcomics over breakfast to warm up my brain.  While opening a new browser tab, getting to feedly, and clicking comics really isn't that hard, I do the same three clicks almost every day.  And then I usually check my email.  This could certainly be streamlined manually, but why not automate it and make the whole process easier for everyone?

Ideally, we'd be able to detect importance and urgency of emails, posts, or other messages, and figure out when someone would like to be interrupted for something (or a batch of somethings).  If work was automatically paced like this, would some people be more productive?  I probably would.  I hate email clients that ding or give you a popup every time you get an email.  But I also hate the feeling that I'm missing something important if I go for a while without checking my email.

This has turned into a rant about tools for streamlining productivity instead of an obituary for Google Reader.  Reader was good, but not perfect, and it obviously wasn't well-used enough to survive.  Hopefully Google will spend their energy on bigger and better things, and maybe it'll force me to write some awesome productivity app.  Regardless, I used Reader a lot, and I'm a little sad to see it go.  Goodbye, old friend.

winter to spring

Last week, the weather was gorgeous, so I spent a bit of every morning prepping the community garden for spring.  And then, in an attempt to be as contrary as possible, mother nature gave us snow this weekend. Now, we have a strange wintery mix going on as I type. Inside, my poor little tomato seedlings look out at the snow and shudder.  Don't worry my dears, it'll be warm soon.

work, work, work

This semester is wickedly busy for me, and I feel like that's all I talk about with anyone, mostly because things never get past the hi-how's-it-going phase of the conversation.  I hate it, especially because it's so me-me-me to moan about how crazy things are.  I already know that I'm busy and most of my friends do too.  They're busy too.  Everyone's busy.  But since I haven't adjusted to this level of busy yet, I don't have much time to think about anything else, and thus I don't have much stored up in my conversation-worthy-topics well.  So, sorry friends.  I suck this semester.

I was feeling like I hit my stride and things were going smoothly, but then I got sick this week.  Everything is still fairly in control, and hopefully I can still do some fun stuff this weekend, but I may have set a personal record for sleeping on Thursday.  And I'm a freaking talented sleeper.

Now that I'm able to eat more than applesauce and broth again, I finally have enough energy to get back to work.  And given that what I do (at least part of it) is called data mining, sometimes I find myself humming...

working from home

Recently, Yahoo's CEO Marissa Mayer implemented some HR policies to phase out working remotely.  There are a bunch of articles--Wired, Forbes, Buzzfeed, to name a few--and a lot of strong opinions.

I've been in a variety of work situations, running the full spectrum: some required my presence in the office every day, others in which I worked almost entirely from home.  I've worked from home one or two days a week regularly, and have also regularly spent half days in the office and half at home.

I've noticed that there can be some benefits to working form home.  Sometimes it's easier to focus or buckle down on a particular problem in the comfort and solitude of one's home. This is especially true if you have a social office or don't have solitary space at work. Allowing working from home can also improve job satisfaction: sometimes we need to sign for an important package or wait for the cable guy, and it's nice when our employer doesn't make us take a vacation day for that.  It's also more welcoming to people with kids or otherwise need flexibility in their lives.

But, there are also some disadvantages.  Often, there is little or no accountability when an individual works from home.  So, if they can work fast, or claim they got stumped on something, then they don't have to put in a full day's work.  Then there is also the issue of people not being in the office when you need them for something; instead of stopping by their desk, you either need to call or email, which might be a barrier for some people to asking at all.  On the flip side, you can't ask people things in person when you're at home, and so you might not have all the resources you need.  And then there's the most obvious downside to working at home: distractions.  This ranges from chores to novels to kids.

So here's my proposed solution: accrew work-at-home days like you do vacation.  Or, just give people slightly more vacation days and force them to use half or a quarter of a vacation day every time they work from home.  You don't need to eliminate working from home, you just need to disincentivize it.

little love

On my walk home from work today, I found a little sparrow that could not fly.  It was chirping pitifully at the curb of a walkway, unable to move.  I cooed at it for a while, and then picked it up gently and carried it home.  After a few minutes, it escaped, and flew into the sky so beautifully, I thought that it was perfectly fine.  But in a few seconds, it plummeted to the ground, flailing.  I managed to get it home, talking to it the whole time.  I gave it some water and seed, and put it in a makeshift cage: an overturned basket.

After a while, though, it became apparent that the little bird did not want to be there.  It kept trying to escape, and was almost hurting itself in the process.  With time, I decided that it would be best to put it back outside, and N and I put it near some bushes in the woods behind our building.  At the very least, it is more protected there than it was on the open walkway on which I had found it.

I thought of calling a vet, getting a proper cage, etc., but it seemed against the natural order of things.  I couldn't bring myself to kill it, either, although it will certainly die soon.  There is something to be said for the good Samaritain mentality, but some things should just run their course.  Little Bird is beautiful, and I hope and pray for it, but caring for it properly was both beyond my abilities and beyond my responsibility.  It is more important for me to spend my time and energy on myself, N, and the people I love.  I have no shortage of love, especially for the little living things, but I do lack omnipotence.

Happy Valentine's day to all, no matter if you're giddy or the day is bittersweet.

knowledge vs. belief

It's very common for Mormons to say "I know ___," as in "I know the church is true," or "I know that Christ is my Savior."  Today, we had a man stand up and shamefully declared that he didn't know, but that he believed, and it was one of the most touching expression of faith that I've heard in a good long while.

We also had an investigator sitting near us today, and after the meeting he asked me what people meant when they said that they knew something that is generally considered to be unknowable.  I told him that it was a way in our culture of expressing that one has had a spiritual experience confirming the belief in question, but that often times we just say I know instead of I believe out of cultural habit.  People simply like the strength implied by knowledge.

I'm somewhat comfortable with this specialized cultural context of knowledge, but my main struggle with this phrasing is that it discourages people that don't know, or that haven't had confirming spiritual experiences.  It's exclusive: you're not in the club because you don't know.  Because of this, the use broadens to cover simple belief as well, making the club more inclusive, but making things even more painful for those who feel they cannot honestly declare knowledge when they have none.

phone-related commercials + rant

First, there's the Sprint Unlimited commercial.  They feed you lines about how human experience is spectacular, and why would you cap that?  Your phone can capture the entire gallery of humanity, the narrator says, and he needs to upload all of it.  Then he says "I have the need--no, I have the right to be unlimited."

No, actually, you don't have the right to an unlimited cell phone plan.   You aren't entitled to anything when it comes to that type of discretionary technology.  You don't even have the right to read technical papers that your tax payer money has funded.  And it's great that your phone can capture everything (which I'm not so sure about, but let's run with it), however, unless you're working on a documentary, you should probably live your life rather than record it all.

Then, we have the Droid DNA ad, showing a man's blood, DNA, and neurons being taken over by his cell phone.  It culminates in the line: "It's not an upgrade to your phone, it's an upgrade to yourself."

No, no, it's not.  Frankly, being obsessed with using your phone might downgrade you as a person.  My question is: why is texting or browsing the web in the social context even okay to begin with?  You wouldn't take a non-urgent phone call in the middle of a conversation with another person, nor would you open up a newspaper in the middle of a class.  Why are people so rude?

Etiquette aside, why are we obsessed with the online world?  Why do people have the patience to use Pinterest regularly?  How do people the have the endurance to tweet or check for Facebook updates continually?  To me, so much of it feels like noise that's getting in the way of the things that I really care about.

I love the internet.  I love being able to look things up, sync my files, and blog.  But I have no desire to be constantly plugged into the online world. I have no desire for a smartphone. I love making things more than reading about making things. I love working uninterrupted. I love paper maps, even though I can get terribly lost. Getting lost is half the fun.

So while the age threshold for people with nicer phones than me drops into the tweens, I'm declaring my right to limit myself.  I don't need unlimited online access, and I'm more productive, learn more, and am more engaged with the world without it.