[18] Some thoughts on Compression, Visualization, and Blackjack

Beautiful Mnemonics - Compressed Graphics

It occurred to me a while ago that some printed graphics can be said to be "compressed," not in the JPEG sense, but rather in the traditional information theory sense of the word, i.e. they can contain more information than explicitly shown, provided the recipient knows the conventions necessary to extract the implied information. In traditional Tufte terminology, these graphics could be said to have a data-ink ratio higher than 1.0, and more poetically, to borrow another Tufte motto, they can illustrate a negative "smallest effective difference."

The example shown below is the compression of the traditional table for Blackjack basic strategy to a set of smaller tables with many implied cells. Perhaps these tables will not be useful to a complete amateur, but everyone with a basic knowledge of the game I have tested them with has found them very useful in memorizing the rules completely, something they have failed to do with the traditional table, which shows independently the 220 data points.

I believe this is an effective example of a special type of "compressed graphics" that can serve as "beautiful mnemonics" rather than "beautiful explanations."


(click for large version)


Below is a longer explanation of the two points above for those not familiar with Tufte's terms.

A longer version - Questioning data ink ratios and the smallest effective difference

Given the amount of manipulative and content-free media pushed around us (think Fox news), teaching people how to create elegant and meaningful visual explanations seems a useful goal. Perhaps no one has contributed more to it than Edward Tufte, who in his books explains the basic principles of effective information design and shows many outstanding applications. If you have not had a chance yet to see his work, I recommend you stop here and check the following link:

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

One of Tuftee's recurrent themes is avoiding waste, making graphics with a "high data-to-ink ratio." In other words, charts where every line and piece of text is meaningful, without unnecessary colors and decorations. A sort of Visual Strunk and White which Tuftee praises with the lyrical phrase "the smallest effective difference."

In Tuftee's books, "the smallest effective difference" is usually illustrated by starting with a bloated and ugly graphic and succesively getting rid of unnecessary ink, minimizing waste. The result is usually a beautiful and compact representation of the original data, with a higher "data-ink ratio."

I've often wondered about the possible results of the "clean up process" given a starting point that was not a bloated graphic, but already a clean one1. To which point can it be simplified? are there cases where we can delete even data-ink and still have a useful graphic? perhaps an even better graphic? In short, is there a case to be made for a negative smallest effective difference?

1. Playing with other properties of the graphic such as dimensions is one possible answer. This is illustrated in Tufte's discussions about sparklines. In this case I'm referring to further deletion of data past the obviously desired deletion of fluff.

Before jumping into these formulas it is important to make a disclaimer: Tuftee's points are heuristics using math terminology, not standalone formulas for quality. With the above in mind, lets phrase in pseudo-math terms the idea of the smallest effective difference as follows:

Data ink ratio = data ink / graphic ink (ink that conveys information vs total ink used to produce the graphic)

From this, one interpretation of the smallest effective difference could be:
graphic ink - data ink

This would seem to imply that the goal is a data ink ratio closest to 1.0, in other words, a smallest effective difference of 0. However consider a graphic that implies more data than it explicitly expresses:
data ink = explicit data + implied data

To express more data than that explicitly shown, the receipient must know an algorithm to extract such data from the original message. In other words, the reader must be able to infer the implied data. In traditional information theory, a classic example of compression is run-length encoding, where contiguous identical digits are implied by specifying how many times they repeat instead of writing them explicitly. e.g.
3.422222222231333333 is converted to
3.42{9}313{6}

The compressed format is shorter, although it requires the reader to know a convention. If we were to consider text as graphics we'd already have a first example of a graphic with a data ink ratio higher than one. Thankfully, we don't have to make such an extreme case to illustrate the idea: the blackjack table below is a more meaningful example.

The point of many graphics is to render new data clear to the reader. In such cases, using a "compressed" graphic may not be a good idea because first one would have to explain to the reader the conventions necessary to read the implied data. However, not all graphics are meant to explain new data. Memorization and quick confirmation previously known information is also helpful.

Here's a practical example, compressing the traditional table for Blackjack basic strategy to a set of smaller tables with many implied cells. Perhaps these tables will not be useful to a complete amateur, but everyone with a basic knowledge of the game I have tested them with has found them very useful in memorizing the rules completely, something they have failed to do with the traditional table, which shows explicitly 220 data points. I believe this is an effective example of a special type of "compressed graphics," that can serve as "beautiful mnemonics" rather than "beautiful explanations."




A traditional Blackjack Strategy table
vs A compressed/mnemonic table

[17] A guide to existentialist cinema

[15] Alfred Jarry and Edsger W. Dijkstra

to Schaffer El Dedos.

It is a common opinion, among those who have traveled the proverbial path of excess, that the palace of Wisdom can only resemble either an absinthe-filled whorehouse or a physics lab.

Perhaps less obvious is the equivalence of the two options —at least when real professionals are involved— in defense of which I present the following parallel between Libertine glory Alfred Jarry and CS hero Edsger W. Dijkstra, on the topic of Certainty:

Jarry - Discussing principles of "Pataphysics"

http://faustroll.lineaments.net/ (free in french) or Amazon (english)

If you let a coin fall and it falls, the next time it is just by an infinite coincidence that it will fall again the same way; hundreds of other coins on other hands will follow this pattern in an infinitely unimaginable fashion.

Dijkstra - From "A position paper on Fairness"

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1013.PDF

[...] With a perfectly fair roulette it is possible that each time he turns the roulette and throws the ball, the ball will end up at zero. Unlikely, but perfectly possible. [...] The dissatisfied customer can still try to sue the roulette manufacturer, not because he has been cheated by the latter but only on account of the very high probability that he has done so. In a case like that, the conscientious judge can give the roulette manufacturer only a probabilistic fine; whether or not it should be paid can be settled by the roulette in question.

Fabio Arciniegas A., Taipei Taiwan September 2009

So you say you LOVE "Inglourious Basterds"

Fabio Arciniegas A., San Diego California August 2009

[13] Technology and Sentimentality

To my friend, Mr. X.

Luis Buñuel was fond of saying he preferred sad endings in his social movies rather than happy ones so as to not rob the audience the anger the film inspires and with it the impulse to change the world outside the cinema: If the pretty girl who sells roses on the screen doesn't become a princess, but instead lives forty years of unjust pain, maybe we'll get out of the theater more concerned about the woman selling roses at the entrance.

Buñuel —like Fassbinder and Herzog— understood that the process of documenting the world is hurt when tainted by sentimentality.

By sentimentality I do not mean either an excess or misplacement of emotion. Herzog is very emotional about jungle animals and Fassbinder makes love declarations to whores. In the words of the master: "Who can judge when emotion is too much? People vary not only in the power to feel and express feeling but also in their imagination."

Instead, the problem with sentimentality is action. Sentimentality is feeling that paralyzes action. It is self-serving and a brand of bullshit.

The mechanics of sentimentality

Sentimentality works by dulling legitimate urges and providing feel-good, simple, and ineffective solutions.

A friend of mine often mentions how he hates "Prince Caspian" because after killing thousands of foot soldiers, they finally get to the top bad guy who made all the trouble and in a teary moment they spare him. It is a good example. Barzun also mentions how on "A Sentimental Journey" William James has the woman shedding "tears for the plights of the poor heroine on the stage while her coachman is freezing outside the theater. "

Examples abound online too: Feel bad about the killings in Rwanda? become a fan of our facebook group!

There is in the last example a positive element of dissemination and some people do use those online groups as a first step towards action. But for the most part it is a placebo and a self-promoting platform.

Consuming placebos or taking action (or not consuming anything at all) is an affair between each man and his conscience. Instead I want to talk about the issue of producing this sentimental content, in particular doing so to sell social positions related to technology.

The technology brand

Technology sentimentality starts from the conclusion a priori that technology (especially online, sharing, free) is essentially good and desirable and should be pursued and encouraged by everyone. It presents a world full of "success stories in sharing" so people are encouraged to accept, even rejoice in the assumed fact that we live in a "society of perfect information and sharing your value away online is the way of the future."

By painting this picture, pundits seduce people into non-critical thinking and obscure the most important aspects of the discussion; Worse, they recruit people not just for their personal brand but for interests beyond their scope and control. Given that those interest can have serious negative consequences, the technology sentimentalist may be doing a great disservice to its herd. We'll come back to this point later on, let's review now a compounding aspect to the issue,

Accelerating sentimentality through technology

Technology can be not only the focus of sentimentalism, but its delivery mechanism. Chronic online sentimentality occurs when commentators pushed by the need of a theme and pressed by the tools of social networks take a "positive" idea, such as "technology is a progressive and democratic force," and become their pundits online, reporting in snippets every successful example of the cause. This has some distinguishing features:

1. Because the format of social networks is fast and short and the piece of information is competing with so many others, the message is tailored to elicit a quick emotional response, not an intellectual one. It is garbled with status symbols and disjoint examples are mixed to maximize impact. In short, it is manipulative.

2. If the underlying veracity of the theme is challenged, so is the legitimacy and existence of the pundit. Therefore, the pundit's goal is to proselytize a conclusion, not to analyze a problem. Information "useful" for the cause is pushed through and "problematic" information is hidden. This is not new to propagandists, of course, just emphasized, accelerated online.

3. Because the goal is to attract as many followers as possible and expand the profile, association with other groups is mandatory. Because association with other "positive causes" is so simple and quick, the pundit rapidly becomes a fan of many causes that sound good or popular but are unrelated and the space in which he can disagree becomes smaller as the mixed interests become larger.

4. Because the medium is made of snippets and the audience is so broad, the message must be simplified, shortened, sanitized. Inspiring and Infantile.

In short, technology pundits tend to deal in sentimentalized information. To make it worse, their medium of choice pushes them to further idealize and simplify their conclusions.

The consequence is a very effective indoctrination, a feeling of "inspiration" on the masses and with it, non-critical thinking and paralysis towards the serious underlying questions.

A particularly troublesome case

There is one particular case of technology sentimentality that encompasses everything said above and worries me especially. It is selling the idea to people in developing countries that giving intellectual products away online is "good," "invitable," and they must "catch up."

The argument goes something like this:

"The future is sharing (a priori conclusion). Those who do not share and adapt to new technologies will be left behind (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Here are examples of how a few in the first world monetize social networks, peer to peer content, and free technologies (extraneous, aspirational example), here are samples of mavericks, innovators, pirates (symbols of status, cool) in our own community who benefit from the publicity and collaboration of social networks (discourse changes from money to love as needed).

Here is a gadget you don't know about (exoticism and status) in which you too can create content for free (let the others hold the means of production, you just pay your fee and put on your work). The future is great (sentimental, unsubstantiated claim) and although is not a perfect world (fundamental issues glossed over) there is hope in these technologies and the path is to 'catch up' and join the first world in sharing our products online! (back to a priori conclusion, and an inspirational message resembling more religious ecstasy than intellectual conclusion)."

It is effective propaganda and the audience loves it. Whether it is a good idea or not remains a hidden question.

The mechanics of selling it can be extremely sentimental. Here's a sample from a conference from one of my best friends and 15 year counterpart on this discussion: Mr. Pablo Arrieta. I don't doubt my friend's good intentions, in fact I vouch for them. This makes it all more worrisome, because it shows the messenger is as susceptible to the kool-aid as the audience (the caption reads: "Someone had an idea. To prevent it from becoming stale he posted it to the web. The idea became a movement and then it changed the world. The man who had it had a beautiful life, and everyone that shared to make the idea grow loved him forever")

This position bothers me because of its sentimentality and because of its audience. It can mislead capable people down a difficult and conflicted path.

So what would I do differently? In the spirit of Buñuel I'd suggest to end with uncomfortable questions. Here are some I'd ask a Colombian audience thinking of giving away their stuff for free:

• What is the proportion of your goals? to be cool with the new gadget, to play around while you make your real life elsewhere, to get free stuff, to make money, to make a profit by distributing others work, to belong to a group, or to expose your work without further expectation? Your logical position towards sharing may change dramatically depending on this answer.
• Are you a fan of sharing because of altruism or because you don't know how to hack/break into the market? Honestly, if you could do the same and get paid for it would you still share for free?
• If your work is so-so maybe you know you wouldn't make any money off it anyway. Maybe you don't care about money. But if your work is really good and you'd rather be paid to do it, have you explored fully your options? wouldn't your interests be best served by questioning the assumptions (your current location, for example) and learning how to monetize your work instead of assuming the world is about sharing?
  
• The name pirate sounds cool. But if you were really a pirate, wouldn't your interest be best served by stealing all you can and giving nothing away? Wouldn't you tell others to give things away but don't do so yourself?
• If you're a pure artist, live for your art only and already have some means for subsistence, you may share without further expectation. For you, leaving the monetization issue in the air is not a problem. I've met only a few of such artists, they are indeed untouchable. Have you met many? Are you one?
• Suppose you care about exposure. Do you honestly think getting 4,000 hits on a blog does the same for you as selling 4,000 books?
• A running assumption is that new media is the queen of exposure. It is certainly quicker, but do you think you'd get more chances of publishing a book to a national audience if you (a) win a local literature award, (b) submit academic papers to US conferences or (c) get 4,000 hits on your blog?
• Suppose you are producing intellectual content other than art and you want to eventually make money. Do you think google and those other examples from the US give away their knowledge for free? do they sell a product on the web or their brand in the stock market?
• Is the google game a feasible one in a place like Colombia or are you playing a different one? what good is to play the goals of one game within the rules of another?
• Do you control the means of production or just your labor?
• Suppose you want to take this to the next level and care about a group, like a developing country. Can It afford to invest the labor of its brightest on the sentimental promise that one day it'll be as open, cool, and progressive as the US is suppossed to be?

Fabio Arciniegas, San Diego California July 2009

1. "On Bullshit" Harry G. Frankfurt
2. "The House of Intellect" Jacquez Barzun
3. "An unspeakable betrayal - Selected Writings of Luis Buñuel" Luis Buñuel
4. "Begin here: the forgotten conditions of teaching and learning" Jacquez Barzun

[6] Top five: Relatively less famous artists who rock at drawing dangerous girls

On occasion of the news of Hugo Pratt's retrospective "Périples Secrets" I thought of a top five list that deserves a bit better than a facebook entry. Five of my favorite artists, very well known in their own circles but not so much outside, who share one thing: doing great illustrations of dangerous wonderful girls. Enjoy:

5. Zak Smith

Junkie Goddesses. A compulsive artist best known for illustrating every page of Pynchon's gravity's Rainbow, makes wonderful watercolors of NYC's tough and beautiful

http://www.zaxart.com

4. Tara McPherson

Best of this American Cute post-tatoo style. Clever, polished.

http://www.taramcpherson.com/

3. Hugo Pratt

Old School great exotic dangerous girls. I loved Julie from the Maxx's growing up, and that was just my proxy to Pratt's girls

http://www.cortomaltese.com

2. No

Yep, that is her name: "No." and she pours feverishly image after image of aggressively feminist rock and roll girls on flickr and elsewhere. Innita, her lover and band leader is the queen of the "menorrealista" movement.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/innita/

1. René Gruau.

Dangerous perfect girls the way I like best: happy and flirty in the best of high fashion, with no need, hope, or fear of the future, flirty elegant things in $10,000 necklaces, all smiles and knowing looks, captured with simple and elegant curves. Ah!

"Elegance is fluid and therefore by definition difficult to define, but it is made of desire and knowledge, of grace refinement, perfection and distinction"



Fabio Arciniegas A. - Taipei, Taiwan May 2009

[4] My Heroes' Heroes

"I see no better steadying force than to take history personally; I mean, not solely as aid to serenity, but as power with the right to be 'the intruder at the door.'"
-- Jacques Barzun

As I start my thirties, it seems people around me once avid for knowledge and exciting artistic discoveries hit a barrier.

The symptoms may be familiar to many personally, or at least through observation of friends: first, a reduced number of valuable references and exciting discoveries occur: long gone are the days of discovering Martin Scorsese or Chuck Palahniuk for the first time. Second, a certain nostalgia and repetition sets in and heroes become deified in the absence of exciting enough replacements. This is particularly apparent in rock fans.

In short, given a rich enough popular knowledge background during your teens and twenties, by the time you hit thirty you may feel like you've exhausted what is "cool to know," and the rest is repetition, footnotes, occasional minor discoveries.

Coping Strategies

One popular coping strategy is to teach: chasing the dragon by introducing others to the same set of references. This is both a necessary enterprise and a consolation prize. On one hand is important and satisfying to share, on the other it is a pale comparison of the thrill of research and discovery of new treasures for yourself.

The second strategy is to give up: basically rationalize the experience as an inherent limitation of your capacity as a human; categorize intellectual curiosity as a phase, or in the worse case, declare bitterly the world as a known quantity with little else to offer and let repetition set in.

The Nature of the Problem

To a certain extent, the reader will be surprised to know, I find truth in the last strategy mentioned: the world of mid-brow valuable references available through pop culture, which we usually acquire in our teens and twenties is finite and relatively easy to exhaust. There is only so many movies as good as Taxi Driver. There is no need, however, for despair:

The issue, as far as I can discern, has its root on the way we discover "cool" information in the modern world. This mode is best summarized by the "find more like this" or "if you liked this artist you may like..." buttons on online interfaces. To guide yourself by the thrill of similarity is to travel a relatively flat surface searching for the next sweet taste in your mouth. The candy store is ample but at some point you'll exhaust it.

Changing Strategies

We all heard the stories of Newton and Descartes turning to tradition in their latter years, Borges learning icelandic to read the veddas, instead of reading the newspaper, and Rosellini quiting commercial movies to do character studies of kings and queens. These episodes are often sensationalized but I think they hide a very useful and down-to-earth strategy: to keep interested and excited these guys decided to get lost on the volume of history instead of trying to roam the plane of "more like this."

Lets call this strategy looking for "my heroes' heroes." It is a very rewarding process and as far as I can tell far harder to exhaust during a lifetime. It holds the power of truly new discoveries and gives volume to an artistic experience that was previously planar.

What's more, I suggest that without this approach where every curious person turns into a historian, the pressure of finding new exciting things is impossible to satisfy. Reminds me of that Umberto Eco joke where they guy turns to the girl and says: "pardon me, do you have any plans after the orgy?"

Fabio Arciniegas A. - San Diego, CA April 2009

[3] Drinking, Existensialism, and Magic

As a result of my decision to stop drinking alcohol permanently, plus my insistence on referring to the process by the completely exotic term of "a magic ritual," I've recently engaged in a higher than usual number of conversations regarding religion, existentialism, and ritual.

Being pulled, or pushing people into metaphysical conversations is usual fare for new sober people given both their vanity and the fact that society, particularly in America, expects sobriety decisions to be accompanied by a surge of faith and demands Pathos. I intend to convert no one nor tell any rebirth stories here, but only to leave record of some of the books that explain an unusual position. This way a few friends who have found my summary intriguing can explore further.

A more direct explanation of the relation is pending, but here's a selection of writings related to the three key ideas: the absurd, hopeless joy, and Ritual or Magic defined not as stage tricks --which I love, incidentally-- but as human will given focus by method.

- The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus http://www.scribd.com/doc/3223928/Albert-Camus-The-Myth-Of-Sisyphus
-Toward a Fateful Serenity, Jacques Barzun
- History of Eternity, Jorge Luis Borges

Fabio Arciniegas A. - San Diego, CA April 2009

[1] Certain colorful enthusiasms

A few months ago, around the time of the inauguration of President Obama, I dared quote Bernard Shaw to an exuberantly hopeful audience in our small town of San Diego, CA.

The reactions consisted of confused shrugs and saddened disbelief at my "pessimism," with the exception of a handful of friends trained in the art of exercising healthy skepticism, particularly about dramatic and widespread positive changes in humanity, even when coming from the smartest and most charismatic of political figures.

But how to reach the others? how to communicate to them how misguided certain enthusiasms and hopes sound to those of us who share their nature but not their degree and tone? didn't seem possible at the time so I forgot about it until today when by chance came the answer, in the form of pictures truly worth a thousand words. Please enjoy:

http://badpaintingsofbarackobama.com/



Fabio Arciniegas A. - San Diego, CA April 2009

[0]

It is March 2009. These days the idea of a personal site is passe, a "Web 1.0" phenomenon. Instead, the use of social sites and blogs to share "personal perspectives" is in fashion. Only a few years ago most people seemed to agree that the sharing of such personal details lacked decorum, it was an uncool/nerdy activity, or was something fit only for kids. Some people --I am honestly proud of them-- still hold some of those views and never touched the stuff. Most others, eventually have converted and poured over their personal life in real time over twitter, facebook, doppler, friendfeed, etc.

Like many,I've become increasingly disenchanted with the quality of information on the so called Web 2.0 and I'm cured from the illusion that anyone cares whether I'm brushing my teeth at the moment, So why then a personal blog?

Well,three simple reasons:

1. Although not terribly interested in link sharing etc, I am interested in producing from time to time small digital tools and toys that people might find useful or interesting,and I don't want to pay for hosting or devote time to maintaining a server for them.

2. I'm interested in maintaining a searchable log of articles and other public and semi-private information I push to the web. These things may have nothing in common other than they are produced by me. Imposing a theme seems an unnecessary promise useful for nothing other than increasing the stress to make posts frequent/fit the theme.

3. As a final reason, I confess my Vanity may insist on telling me an occasional rant *needs* to be shared, and although I consider it a gentleman's duty to resist her, I reserve the right to indulge.

Fabio Arciniegas A. - Taipei, Taiwan March 2009