Monthly Archives: July 2020

Great Design

Great Design

The English Snob

I’m kind of secretly a snob when it comes to the English language, which wouldn’t be as funny if I were actually fully and completely proficient at English.

Be that as it may, there are at least 3 things that need correction in American English, and they all stem from the same discrepancy:  There is an accepted paradigm that states that language should support ease of use, but yet there is sometimes a lag in the implementation of that paradigm.

 

1.) The first correction is to completely rescind the rule that states that numbers below 11 (some say only below 10) should generally be spelled out.  An counterexample of this is right above where I wrote the numeral ‘3’ instead of the word ‘three’.  Notice how it’s easier to read?  Easier-to-read trumps everything else.

In some cases, small numbers are actually easier to read as a word.  However, in my experience, it’s mostly when there are two sets of numbers being thrown around, and it’s possible to segregate one set (usually the smaller one) by spelling those numbers out.  The bottom line is whatever makes it easier to read is what should be adhered to.

 

2.) An example of the second problem can be found here in a local news story, at the very bottom:

Cameron and Starr counties did not report case numbers as of press time Sunday, with the former routinely skipping Sundays to report activity on Mondays.

Now, in 2020, why do we still tolerate word puzzles in our English-language publications?  If for some reason I wanted to struggle with a printed game, I’d look for something like a crossword puzzle, Sudoku, or maybe even some sort of Mensa challenge.

No one should ever be forced to pause, and use an ounce of mental energy, to figure out what “former” and “latter” are referring to.  Rather than just spell out what they’re saying, these authors are punishing us, and the question is why are we still accepting it?

Stylistically, the “former”/”latter” grammatical construct must literally go the way of the dinosaur, and be renounced unless it’s actually used to replace a sizeable† amount of text.

 

3.) What exactly is the Anti-Vaxxers’ philosophy?  Admit it, you had to think about that term Anti-Vaxxers’, didn’t you?

The special-case apostrophe-with-no-s isn’t helping anyone.  It’s not perfectly clear, it causes people to waste mental energy, and adding an extra ‘s’ to the end of the word doesn’t make it especially vile.

In the worst case, there is no problem with the reading of the improved version.  However, I admit that the worst case does sound a little different – but it’s worth it!

“The Anti-Vaxxers’s philosophy…”

If it comes down to saying something that sounds a little different in the worst case, and having to spend mental energy thinking about what words actually mean, saving mental energy should always win, and will eventually win anyway.

 

†  Note the British English spelling.  Totally inconsistent use of British English should be acceptable in cases where British English spellings are deemed easier to the eye in terms of comprehension.

Points of Controversy

Points of Controversy

Very-Low-Brow Game Theory

or… Useless Information: How And When Anti-Vaxxers Are Right

COVID-19 has made a huge impact on the world and the United States, and so-called “Anti-Vaxxers” have been an integral part of the story.

As far as I can tell, Anti-Vaxxers could only be correct in two scenarios:

1.) A world dystopian enough that the government would supply toxic vaccines – either through malice, ignorance, or incompetence.  I think it’s premature to adopt that worldview currently, so I don’t subscribe to it, but I don’t discount the possibility that it could be correct in some possible dystopian future.

2.) If various Eastern religions tell us that each individual has their own truth, then game theory is the mathematical accounting of that idea.  A unique scenario is actually arising in about 6 months or so, where, if an individual happened to view life as an amoral, zero-sum application of game theory, then for a brief moment in time, non-Anti-Vaxxers would have an incentive to secretly promote Anti-Vaxxer philosophy so as to increase the likelihood that they and their loved ones would receive a vaccine and could then get on with their lives (at least to some extent as compared to the present).

It’s strangely whimsical and hard boiled at the same time, but mathematically it seems to be correct.

First, it would probably have to be done secretly.  Otherwise there could be a stigmatic cost to the particular individual, and that could outweigh the benefits.

Second, people are very polarized on this, and their minds are fairly made up, but in general I suspect people who believe in vaccines believe in them in an almost irreversible manner.  Thus, only the “marginal Anti-Vaxxer” would probably be in play.  The idea would be that some Anti-Vaxxers might be suffering from FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) due to constant COVID-19 headlines, and the idea would be to undo all of that.  Furthermore, a marginal Anti-Vaxxer can get a vaccine, and then lie to everyone and claim they never received one – this may be tempting.

Third, this is all predicated on the idea that vaccines will be limited at first.  Most people believe that will be the case.

Fourth, it goes without saying that there is a social cost to millions of people not getting vaccinated, and then risking death or taking up hospital resources.  That cost then trickles down to the individual, so after the individual (and their loved ones) are vaccinated, they no longer have any incentive to spread propaganda.

(For the purposes of this analysis, “loved ones” would include anyone in the individual’s life who the individual has a significant personal stake in remaining healthy.)

Fifth, there’s no question that the impact of the individual’s propaganda effort is small, so it’s assumed that the individual has nothing better to do.  Given the unemployment numbers, and what many people are reported to be doing currently, it could be argued that that’s the case.  (That I would ever write a blog post this useless, and that you would read it, could also be supportive of that idea.)  Each individual will vary, and if there were something more enriching that the individual were likely to do, then the model doesn’t hold for that individual.

Sixth, would it make sense to go full-blown Anti-Vaxxer during the entire crisis?  Not necessarily.  The problem is that it’s not known when a vaccine will become available!  Thus, if it keeps getting delayed, the cost of doing this could become exorbitant.  However, this is sort of an open question with an amorphous shape, since the individual may not be spending his time on something more useful anyway.

Thus, the chart would look something like this:

To be completely honest – and this is likely the only real value in the above analysis – I think people acting on the above whimsical idea could be a fairly interesting concept for some sort of comedy some day, although not necessarily specific to COVID-19.  COVID-19 carries too much negative baggage due to the tragedy and trauma it’s already caused.

So would I partake in something like this?  Nope, not at all.  First, it’s just too reprehensible.  (Moral concerns are generally incompatible with the tenets of game theory; only people who truly don’t care can succeed in such a model).  But second, if I were being completely honest, another reason is that these mathematical benefits are too small to see.  The larger and more pronounced the benefits – for example, the certainty between life and death – the more likely the individual will be tempted, if not compelled, to act.