This seems to overlap with your response. In fact it is probably my favourite HP article of all, because I love the imagine of the solar panels reflecting the mountains because it sort of Bulyansungwe, Uganda in the background. In a way, the article is of interest because it ties together a lot of reference points.
Healthy Food Choices and Family-Friendly Surroundings
The notion of technology availability for new born children who might otherwise not use it. A school or a home with some power supply. The third reference point it ties in, is the fact that it is a good old fashioned piece of investigative reporting of the situation on the ground, in an area remote from where I am living today. This can be an important advantage in many areas where rural utility grids are expanding rapidly.
This is precisely my argument. I am not arguing that technology increases the options for everyone equally. Of course new technologies remove some options. Lots of excellent horse buggy and whip makers lost their opportunities. I talk about a very tiny net gain in options when you tally up all the options lost compared to the ones added. That very tiny micro net gain accumulated over time is progress.
If you take a random human on earth from 10, years ago, from 1, years ago, from years ago and from 10 years ago, the chances are greater the nearer we pick the more that person will fulfill their potential. Or, second experiment, ask a random person today when they would prefer to live, and the more fulfilled they are, the more recent they want to live. It is only absurd if the great works had already been created. That is if someone else had written Mozart like symphonies. Many are still writing classical symphonies.
People are still writing operas and concertos.
- Subscribe to our newsletter!.
- Starting a Business on eBay.co.uk For Dummies.
- Gutz!
- Family-Friendly Restaurant | Massachusetts – Kelly's Roast Beef.
- A Few Lyrics For The Bored.
- Nicholas Carr's blog.
Artists are still painting still lifes and realistic portraits Writing novels. And making careers doing so. Symphonies that a 21 century Mozart would write today may be sound different, but could still be genius. Would you say that if Dickens was alive today he would not write great novels? Would you say that if Van Gogh was alive today it is absurd to think he would paint? And in part it may be due to this:. I spent my formative years not in college, but in the middle ages. I mean I lived in medieval towns, and feudal villages and ancient camps.
I have lived in the past, not just read about it. I spent a lot of time among illiterate people, simple people with very little technology. Years in places that for all practical purposes are a time before Mozart. I feel I have a visceral feeling for both the advantages and joys of that type of life, and of its disadvantages.
I feel I have a good sense of how difficult it was for a Homer to appear. My thoughts return again and again and again to the thousands of village boys and girls I met who spent their childhoods and beyond plowing behind an ox year after year, or mindlessly following sheep and goats for weeks on end away from home, wanting wanting wanting to leave — to do something greater. Homer was lucky, a one in a million. The other million Greeks, as well as you and I if we were born then, had no such luck. Their lives would only be improved in satisfaction and fulfillment if they moved to the future.
I know this in my bones. In particular I remember a remote Greek island I stayed on where the women were still veiled, the folk spoke a dialect of classical Doric, and all they wanted was electricity. There were farmers and housewives but no Archimedes. I have not been back for 40 years, but I bet today there are many more occupations, far more diversity of achievements. I would say they had a contentment, but I would never say they came close to fulfilling their potential.
They generally agreed, because they encouraged their children to NOT follow their footsteps for this reason. This progressive view does not stem from my theology.
A Fun Downtown Gulfport Sports Bar
In fact it is the reverse. My theology stems from this formative experience. The best explanation of that I ever encountered was from a 50 something year old architect here in Dublin, Ireland. He made the transition from paper drawing to digital AutoCAD drawing in the later s. In one of his more reflective moments, I remember him saying that when working on paper you are working on the actual medium that you are outputting the document on. That is, you are working at real scale on the drafting board, so you can instantly see whether the sheet composition works well or not.
If you ever look at an ancient architectural book such as Bannister Fletcher or some others, you will see the sophistication with which they could fit things and arrange things on a sheet of paper. So that link between the end product, the drawing medium, and the tools by which to produce it are lost. Which results in a lot of people today, who never even look at the end result. It comes out of a bulk printer pre-folded and ready to go into an envelope. A huge industry has developed now in construction as a result, with angry consultants suing each other, and contractors taking cases, because no one even looks at the paper end product that is leaving the offices any longer.
Similarly, it used to drive the architect nuts, when he would see younger architects receive a phone call from a building project, where a contractor had a paper version of the drawing on his end, and the young architect would proceed to open up a CAD version of the drawing on the screen.
You can to put down the phone and go to the drawing folder or drawing chest and find the exact replica paper document, that the contractor was using on site. Frank Gehry architects and all of the modern offices will tell you, you can do without paper completely today — and we should be doing our very best to get away from paper totally.
My old architect friend, who was a quite thoughtful individual by any standard and open to a lot of new technological advantages, would disagree strenuously with Frank Gehry architects on this. You seem to swing between two explanations for how technological progress expands choices. One is based on a statistical analysis of utility: I have no beef with you here. Human beings are toolmakers, and the main reason they make tools is because tools are useful. They extend human power and hence options. This explanation does not require us to believe there is any moral force, any force of love, influencing the course of technology.
The second explanation you give is not about cold calculations of utility.
Amazing Beer Tap Selection
I ask a question about a particular baby — a real child — and suddenly you want to talk about a statistically random child, a theoretical child. Does your God think about children in statistical terms, or does He think about them as individuals? To put it another way: I truly believe your argument about Mozart or Dickens, or anyone from the past is specious.
Just because the piano persists does not mean that Mozart would still be Mozart if he were born today. On the one hand, you want to tie individual genius to the particular technologies of the day.
- God, Kevin Kelly and the myth of choices | ROUGH TYPE.
- Kelly criterion?
- God, Kevin Kelly and the myth of choices!
- Kelly criterion - Wikipedia;
- ;
- Zenith: The First Book of Ascension?
- Daffodil: The remarkable story of the worlds most popular spring flower.
On the other hand, you seem to say that individual genius is not constrained by the technologies of the day. The view is very different depending on which way you measure things. But one of the most important effects of technology has been to allow for an enormous increase in human population. And if you look at raw numbers, you might well find that more individuals exist in a state of physical suffering than did before.
The statistical analysis obscures the individual sufferer. So is technology good because it has reduced the percentage of people who suffer, or is technology bad because it has increased the number of people who suffer?
I would recommend to both Nick and Kevin. Someone in Himalayas who spends a whole lifetime perfecting the skills to remain self sufficient earning less in monetary wealth than a suburban inhabitant with virtually no skills at all. The first answer — which is not very satisfying — is that as a omniscient God he thinks both. I think that you can increase options for individuals by increasing the average option or increasing the options for the average individual. I do not argue that a technology A, or even set of technologies A-Z, will automatically optimize the potential of person N.
I argue that it will increase the potential for potential. Perhaps you object to the idea that a moral force could be statistical? Or that love might somehow be an impersonal force? That love is something that only occurs between two humans and is not found elsewhere in the universe? This steady expansion known as progress may not touch each individual our and their loss but because it can liberate gifts an average, like most freedoms, it is a moral force. I say the presence of technology enables individual genius and the lack of technology constrains individual genius. The particular technologies available greatly influence what can be produced.
If time were symmetrical, running backwards with no effect, you would be right. That is the whole point. So while some options diminish, most accumulate, and none completely disappear, although they may obsolesce. We have more choices. As the book Shock of the Old establishes, more of the old technologies are still very much with us. What kind of moral progress is there if it only entails the expansion of percentages and not absolute numbers?
I would say it is not a very robust progress then. And while we tend to ignore it, I believe there was very slow mild progress increase in options even in remote agricultural areas over the millennia. The peasants in China in were better off — on average — than the peasants of BC, or even And as I maintain the poverty of urban slums is much preferable to the poverty of the countryside, so the mass migration into cities in absolute numbers is a sign of progress. Technological change can disable individual genius as well as enable it.
There may be many people on earth today who would have been better able to fulfill their genius, or in general their potential, had they lived in an earlier, less technologically advanced time. In my mind reading the above discussion, I find myself looking at two extreme counterpoints. On the one hand, I recall in reading The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, by by Vanity Fair magazine writer Alan Deutschman — that Jobs in his earliest days as a tech entrepreneur would purposefully associate with as many people with an artistic as possible.
Lets remember, that someone like Jobs started working in Atari I think, and Woz was around at that time too. It is also interesting to note, that Woz commented lately, that computing technology had moved off in a direction now where his unique set of skills in producing those beautiful circuit board designs and logic functions which Jobs needed in the early Apple days — does not really fit into the modern computer era. Somehow, Jobs coming from an engineering background knew he wanted a great piece of architecture, painting, poetry or design.
He just needed a lot of mentors to help him to understand what it might be. The other counterpoint I have in my brain, is watching a DVD set of Ray Mears, the outdoor survival expert who is probably on the other end of the spectrum to Steve Jobs. Mears is a man who in one documentary episode he made for the BBC available at his website , he constructs a birkbark canoe with a member of a native tribe somewhere in Canada. In a way, I think that both Steve Jobs and Ray Mears spent their lives learning how to read the forest. One man dealing with technology that is only being invented as we speak.
The other, using technology that echoes back across the mellenia. Having visited some tribes, and watching the record of others, and reading the literature by the impartial. Simply put, very few people continue that way if they have a choice. Like the Amish it has many attractive qualities, but the closer you get, the less attractive it becomes for yourself. I considered it and looked very closely. We are much to wedded in western culture anyhow to the notion that an artist must be an individual.
Reference, Code conference organized by John Howkins a few years ago. A lady called Martha Woodmansee spoke on collective authorship. Shockley never felt like shared credit for transistor, with Bell labs colleagues. Apologises all for the multiple responses.
- Works of Thomas Gray.
- Einsatz von Soja Isoflavonoiden bei der Linderung von Wechseljahrebeschwerden (German Edition)?
- Your Favorite Late-Night Drive-Thru for More than 60 Years?
- Kelly's Sports Bar Downtown Gulfport, MS.
- The Rapture!
- Did You Know;
- Navigation menu.
Of genius the only proof is, the act of doing well what is worthy to be done, and what was never done before: Of genius in the fine arts, the only infallible sign is the widening the sphere of human sensibility, for the delight, honor, and benefit of human nature. Genius is the introduction of a new element into the intellectual universe: If one knows K and N and wishes to pick a constant fraction of wealth to bet each time otherwise one could cheat and, for example, bet zero after the K th win knowing that the rest of the bets will lose , one will end up with the most money if one bets:.
This is true whether N is small or large. The "long run" part of Kelly is necessary because K is not known in advance, just that as N gets large, K will approach pN. The heuristic proof for the general case proceeds as follows. For a more detailed discussion of this formula for the general case, see. In practice, this is a matter of playing the same game over and over, where the probability of winning and the payoff odds are always the same.
In a article, Daniel Bernoulli suggested that, when one has a choice of bets or investments, one should choose that with the highest geometric mean of outcomes. This is mathematically equivalent to the Kelly criterion, although the motivation is entirely different Bernoulli wanted to resolve the St. The Bernoulli article was not translated into English until , [16] but the work was well-known among mathematicians and economists.
Kelly's criterion may be generalized [17] on gambling on many mutually exclusive outcomes, such as in horse races. Suppose there are several mutually exclusive outcomes. The algorithm for the optimal set of outcomes consists of four steps. Step 1 Calculate the expected revenue rate for all possible or only for several of the most promising outcomes: One may prove [17] that.
The binary growth exponent is. Considering a single asset stock, index fund, etc. Taking expectations of the logarithm:. Thorp [15] arrived at the same result but through a different derivation. Confusing this is a common mistake made by websites and articles talking about the Kelly Criterion. Without loss of generality, assume that investor's starting capital is equal to 1.
Kelly's Choice | Nutritional Company | Central, NY
According to the Kelly criterion one should maximize. Thus we reduce the optimization problem to quadratic programming and the unconstrained solution is. There is also a numerical algorithm for the fractional Kelly strategies and for the optimal solution under no leverage and no short selling constraints. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Bell System Technical Journal. January , "Fortune's Formula: A scientific analysis of the world-wide game known variously as blackjack, twenty-one, vingt-et-un, pontoon or Van John , Blaisdell Pub. May , "The Kelly Criterion: September , "The Kelly Criterion: Retrieved 24 January The Art of Scientific Computing 3rd ed. Thorp Paper presented at: Archived from the original PDF on Retrieved from " https: Optimal decisions Gambling mathematics Information theory Wagering introductions Portfolio theories.