Of mastery vs expertise and of the boxing geek

Loved this http://zedshaw.com/archive/the-master-the-expert-the-programmer/

But I learnt boxing not martial art.

And I think he is all wrong to trying to change people by antagonizing them.

The too long too read is what we call experts are idiots in apprenticeship like young monks in the story of the Tao. And as a good monk he blames it on the person not having the enlightenment of the religion of Art or programming vs the Technique/expertise of programming.

The martial art bull crap that made me stop karate-do, anything do in fact including viet vo dao.

I was a nerd as a kid. And I was bullied. So I did the logical stuff. Learning to fight.
But martial art were not fighting. To ridiculuously codified.

Do you have nice salute and respect from your opponents in the street? Do you have intimidations, tricks?


There was ALWAYS with the tenant of any martial art of trying to prove their superiority with an attack situation where they could finish you in a death grip with the finishing falcon punch of their kind.

Then, I learnt boxing. French boxing. Derived from the street fighting.

And then they did not won a single time their testosteron concept in which they would assert an alpha male dominancy by tricking you in accepting false condition of fight.

My only trick, was the one that works. Feinting to test your opponent and protect yourself as long as you have not judged your opponent. Be fierce, defensive, and always hiding your true intention so that you can surprise an eventually stronger opponent.

Yep. Just double your fastest direct at longest distance you are able to connect, and when you can connect hide the true intention of connecting an heavily balanced direct to the tip of the jaw that would ensure fast lucky victory which is a good idea when you don't know your opponent.  Always aim at defeating better opponents by any mean possible. A good ultimate boxer was the ferocious young myke tyson.

And then he became confident.

I have survived a lot of true fighting situations. The basics of surviving is trusting no rules.

Most aggression situation I have been facing were always due to a confidence in their numerical superiority.

On a ring in 1v1 conditions, french guard is risible. That is why competition uses the english guard.

In the street, taking a good habit at not losing information of your peripheral vision is an hell of a good idea.

When people are distracting you by speaking loud and seeming impressive, you should really take a stand as soon as you begin to see they are trying anyway to make a situation of superiority that did not existed.

In the cité speaking loud is a way to call for reinforcement to generate the situation of superiority. The same way speaking with the loud word of authority calls for the forces of order elsewhere.

Most experienced fighter know that until the fight is made, the outcome of a fight are really violent and uncertain. And fighters that want to become legends by staying alive the longest reduce the uncertainties.

Either by artificially rigging the competition to a less uncertain outcome in their favour, or by avoiding situations in their defavor.

Me being a nerd, not very athletic, but surprisingly good on a  boxing ring, I learnt to run like hell as soon as I was seeing opponents creeping in the back.

Thanks to the expertise of my maître d'arme.

Thanks to boxing I have learned to run away like a coward. I learned there was no pride in going headstrong to a defeat that was planned. I learned also that one of my relations "from the street" I appreciated a lot died of being proud ... "on a ring" in Las Vegas.

 It is not the violence of the streets that killed him but the one of the ring.

I don't like boxing for its guidance in life. And that's where I hate the bulsshit crap of martial art pretending to be something it is not.

Boxing is about staying a living nobody rather than become a dead legend. 

For the ungifted like me, there is no art in staying alive. There are tricks, and learning tricks.

Learning to punch vast, move fast, look fast, stay alert, and be scared like shit.

Sometimes I was scared to put my gloves one. Scared. Like hell. But repeating the same moves, learning to spare, physicial conditions all tricked me into confidence.

And I learned that fighting requires good teaching from masters. But teaching are just tricks in making you have confidence... Because the ultimate trick was that in a fight you had to look like nothing that was in a book to be able to fight efficiently. Else you can be anticipated.

The biggest trick about boxing is learning by the book, and then understanding that the book was a very good joke about throwing away the book at the end. And that fighting is about fighting against the rings and not the fighters.

What about the joy of sparring with friends. Would you go with a friend to the point of probably finishing with one of you in the coma ?

Well, if you love fighting you may like to fight ... friendly. And be able to say stop when the opponent made a point.

We do not need to wait until one on the kendo practioner and the canne d'arme practitioner lost an eye to see who is the funniest. Needless to say, moving in straight line is not very efficient. You can stop at first blood, or when wood makes a loud knocks on the bones :)

I don't know if I would survive out of a nice garden and in a friendly situation a fight. I hate violence. Neither having to endure it, nor giving it appeal to me. But I love boxing when it is friendly, because it is a place where we make confrontation codified, non lethal and made on anything but merit.

That's the joke of efficient street fighting. You may dislike violence, but you begin to enjoy the fight. Because you have a ring that makes it fun ... between practitioners ... without a public.

The violent part of the ring is not what happens on the ring. I do love to watch some match. But most monetary incentive in sport sometimes make it look like a boucherie where people are more interested on the blood on the screen than the good health of the athletes. They don't seem to have an empathy with boxers on the ring wishing to show their best boxes, but with the violence. Violence is not in boxing, but in the eye of the managers that are setting the ring.

I think the mastery versus expertise difference is indeed existing in our jobs too.

Like leveling up with experience points versus Dowloadable Playing Content (you buy your superiority). And like how we are valuing more DLC behaviours versus experience built behaviours.

There is an aristocracy of design that is brutal. But is not violent. The same way boxing result in brutal results but the violence comes from the context.

Some people are confusing the brutality of community management based on results with violence. Like Codes Of Conducts flourishing from social experts coming for their share on the back of the coders.

Did social science never had been curious about how free / source open software community is by a lot of standard one of the most diverse in the world?

Mono cultural on computers, but shared with hundreds of countries, type of government, political opinion, religious opinion, "races" and sexual orientations.  Except for free software, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Radical non discrimination in the realm of craft. And CoC is about asking questions all the time. That are non relevant to producing.

As if having an obvious common shared bias could erase the other biases. And as far as I am concerned, it works. Not always at my liking though. But it works better than corporate programming.

We saw the raise of the UFC/MMA federation called IT corporation and startup is making the ring violent. Like :

Street fight has no gloves, let's remove the gloves ... and the shoes, and the capacity to run like hell ... 
Okay, unless you are not a homeless in very special condition, in France you have shoes. You even have clothes... that you could even use as weapons....

The MMC/UFC makes fight more realistic by pushing the vulnerability... No serious... In the street, in real boxing, not any serious fighter will go for increasing his vulnerability compared to the real situation.

You act accordingly to the situation and you adapt and not fighting is totally okay, even if you have something precious to protect, you run away.

Expertise is about making developers more vulnerable to the external context.

It is about selecting the best athletes, pushing them on a ring, having a rigged organization and generating reasons of conflicts that do not exists in the first place to have people throw at each others throats.

The no poaching agreement makes developer having to have an artificial loyalty to companies to keep their job. Companies with their paradigm of coding/framework and BS crap they exclusively share or adhere to. In weird extreme polarizations.

The holy grails of IA, machine learning, Agile & scrums, Go/Rust, RDBMS vs nosql .... whatever you want you name it.

But these fights are just a ring that had been set. I do think that IA is overprimising and will not likely to be deliver because the craftman problem is about just building more robusts architecture. One that know it can fail even when its inventors said the opposite.

All these tools are like combat technique. They are nice and must be learned by the book.

But the problem we have now is not a problem of knowing new fighting techniques in a specific context, but much more focus on winning the fights really at hands here in real conditions.

More complexity and dogmatism thrown away at solving inherently complex architecture will not result in more robust system.

Coding and fighting are alike. There is only one proof of being a good one, it is by first surviving and there are no diplomas nor easy way to prove it other than dealing with it. Good coders might not think the way you want, but that may be the reason why they are still efficient coders.

And sometimes there are days the technique we are spreading are inherently the wrong one.

Where the tyrany of the expertise make everyone blind about the problems at hand.

Politics does not mix well with code. And an organization big enough will put its politic in its code.

An organization are for me buildings made of politic. From the vision of a designer emerge an organizational unit that is consistent in a corporate culture that becomes good at probem solving.

This is made through sharing an informal order that ignore itself: culture.

Like the belief that we can solve an initially screwed idea by throwing more stupidity at the initial stupidity?

Simple question, is it worth caring about timezones?

It is a fight already lost. The TZ format try to solve the situation to the bad initial conceptual way to solve the need for a universal time by throwing even more confidence in persevering in the absurd decision of agreeing to disagree. Nice.

It is not the physical nature of time that makes us unable to synchronize. It is not the computers. It is not the coder. It is a fucking XML file...

That is the result of very well intentioned person updating the changes in the time zones based on publication of offices reporting that will, may have changed the definition of time locally.

Well the first problem is since people have been confusing the books and reality there is a nice story about this in a book.

It is called the Babel tower.

It is not the unification of the data format that will improve the world. Or more technicity. Today the problem are probably in the handling of an overly connected multicultural world.

I think the bug in our coding might come from our cultural bias in what we are supposed to be versus what we really are.

A conway law, code is reflecting the way the organization are evolving.

And the more we coders are successful the more the powerful and economy likes us. We are tools too. And if our corporate professional culture is shifting towards expertise (LDC) vs mastery (XP), it is not only because we eat our own dogfood, but it is also because it is part of our culture to enforce it. We are trying to be the ideal user we plague our design with. We are trying to win hard on ring of the idealism and the belief in engineering/rock star/frameworks ... while the real world is made of human failures.

We focus very hard on imposing a view of the righteousness of engineering/our techniques while our product decrease in measurable quality. Conformity to the real condition of use.

Good coders are not overconfident. They doubt because they are scared to lose. Because good reflex comes from healthy fear of being crushed.

But they move. They are confident. Not only because they trained. But most importantly because they survived. And sometimes they failed. And they also learn to stand up again. To improve and gain confidence, but not too much and remember how much defeat is painful.

More prudent, yet aggressive... Displaying confidence in your skill, is darn stupid for someone who survived real fights. Over confidence is what put you in trouble. The first user from which a design has to protect itself is the designer. So good designer should accept they can fail and doubt themselves.

My dear expert dealer of bullshit crap, you maybe the best technicians I ever saw out there. You are impressive.... I admit these techniques that need a lot of time to master are impressive... if ever you are in a tank that was ready to blast a poor bee passing by and call it an efficient technique against a poor bee passing by.

 But you are as impressive as romans senator babbling about the techniques to be the most efficient surviving gladiator in the Arena, not seeing the gladiators wiped every months. And as Spartacus have been proving, the best way to not lose a rigged fight is to rebel against rigged fights when you don't want to lose.

I loved coding. It was funny fights, some of which I won. But now, I am throwing away the gloves.

Des accents circonflexes et des réfugiés

Le monde s'étonne. Pourquoi les français sont ils plus concernés et impliqués sur les accents circonflexes qui a priori ne serait pas menacé que par la montée du racisme en Europe?


Qu'est ce que la racisme? Nier la différence, la combattre, l'accepter, la corriger?

Toutes ces réponses à la fois. Et nier la différence est aussi une manière de nier la nécessité de dialoguer.

Le problème du racisme est extrêmement mal posé et c'est pour ça que les français pourraient être en colère.

Il est exposé d'une manière qui dégénère systématiquement en point Godwin contre les couches populaires.

Une personne soucieuse par l'arrivée d'une population hétéro-culturelle en grand nombre pose aux populations sur-exposées dans les couches de la société des phénomènes d'échos facheux tout autant que fachos.

Ok, je dis que je viens de banlieue et c'est vrai. Mais demandez dans ma ville si je suis mal loti comparé à la délinquance, il va vous dire que j'ai grandi dans des conditions bien plus confortables que dans les cités.

Même au sein de la banlieue, on est pas tous exposés uniformément au choc des cultures. Moi je viens pas de la té-ci (mot has been depuis 15 ans de là d'où je viens), je viens de "little portugal". Une partie que les portugais ont "envahi". Il y avait des coté cools ; ils ont retapés les maisons de charme dans le quartier pour vivre dedans et ont levé le standing. Mais les enfoirés, moi le mercredi quand j'étais libre, ils étaient tous à l'école portugaise. Vas-y faire un foot à 3. Et eux le foot, c'était au cathé... Vous voyez, la cohabitation, c'est pas si facile. Karaïe!

Mais entre nous, ça m'a fait de la peine quand ils sont tous parti soit dans d'autres villes soit au pays il y a 20 ans. Remplacés par une nouvelle population. Maintenant, on a des salafistes et des belphégors en ville. Je sais pas combien de temps il va nous falloir pour nous adapter, mais pour moi c'est bizarre. Pour l'instant je sais dire que salamalec et 2 - 3 insultes. Mais je chouffe, je chouffe dur des fois que je sois contaminé sans le savoir.

Je juge pas, mais ça diffère. C'est pas kif-kif.

Chers journalistes, ne niez pas la différence culturelle et n'appelez pas les gens qui vont être en première ligne pour souffrir les conséquences des actions des quelles vous vous soustrayez des fachos.

Journalistes, homme politiques, où habitez vous?

A part une minorité, sûrement pas Calais.  Je me souviens d'ailleurs comment journalistes et hommes politiques (de gauches surtout) on fêté discrètement l'enterrement du concept de lutte des classes en 2000. Entendre lors de réunion du PS (mon père avait des réunion du PS à la maison) enterrer la lutte des classes c'est choquant.

Car la lutte des classes est surtout culturelle.

Comme ma prof de français agrégée qui censurait à l'encontre mêmes des règles du PS des motions qui étaient trop bourrées de fautes d'orthographes et de grammaire. La tyrannie de l'orthographe qui rejette des propos d'ouvriers modestes ayant une éducation modeste sur la FORME sans examiner le FOND.

Cette anecdote inventée qui n'est pas vraie mais suffisamment bien trouvée aurait sûrement des échos à dans d'autres villes que la mienne. Comment en fait les notables, et les journalistes assurent une police politique basée sur les mots, la correction, les usages, l'apparence et la connaissance de règles compliquées.  Comme un jeu de poker à cartes retournées pour certains et non d'autres basé sur une correction ... politique.

Les réfugiés même si ils avaient la même culture politique poserait quand même problème de toute façon : ça s'appelle la démographie.

Pour l'Allemagne vieillissante une main d’œuvre pas chère en age de travailler est exactement la solution au problème du paiement des retraites.

De plus la Syrie a un niveau d'éducation de bonne qualité. C'est donc parfait. Si l'Allemagne pouvait trier le grain de l'ivraie (les qualifiés des non qualifiés) ce serait le rêve économique. Et une bonne manière de faire pourrait être d'imposer aux pays voisins les moins économiquement rentables, donc difficilement insérables. Donc, économiquement on peut tout à fait douter des bonnes intentions d'Angela Merkel qui a bien aidé les ouvriers et étudiants à être encore plus vulnérables depuis son accession au pouvoir et aider les grandes industries allemandes au détriment du reste de l'Europe du Sud. Que Merkel soit une soc-dém à la Macron donne envie de l'appeler la mère Macronelle.

Évidemment, pour le salarié ça implique une compétition accrue, dans une époque où les salaires s'émiettent. Vous savez messieurs les journalistes, depuis les 35 heures il n'y plus de pointeuses.

Et sous formes de justifications oiseuses par leurs propre turpitudes, les patrons qui ont vu leur part augmenter ont séquestré sans contreparties monétaires des travailleurs au nom des charettes. Les 2 types possibles de charettes : licenciement et "charge de travail supplémentaires non planifiées".

On est enfermé en entreprise, privés de nos libertés SANS contrepartie mec.

Ironie, les fonctionnaires que j'ai rencontré et qui faisaient l'étude sur l'accroissement de cette tendance eux même ne rentraient pas toutes leurs heures dans leur logiciel de présence rigoureux. Le salaire horaire réel du salarié qualifié en france te permet de raviver le pro-net-aire d'un ancien inconnu. Sur le papier les pro-net-aires sont bien payés. Mais si tu comptes les heures effectives, il est moins bien payé qu'un comptable. Un gratte papier.

Être maintenu à un endroit avec privation de liberté sans le consentement des acteurs ça s'appelle séquestrer. Quand il y a la prise en otage d'une chose réelle ou fictive (l'emploi) ça devient encore pire. Et quand c'est systématiquement biaisé dans une direction, ça énerve les gens.

Prenez le nombre d'heures travaillées non payées chez air France. Transformez les en heure de séquestration d'un travailleur. Et que constatez vous? Les ressources humaines ont sur l'ensemble de leurs pratiques générés plus d'heure de séquestration que les employés condamnés à séquestrer les ressources humaines. Des micro crimes sans victimes, mais qui une fois cumulés représente des heures de vie familiale, oisive, de bonheur volées. Une somme infinie d'epsilon de crimes jamais condamnés.

Appelons des chats des chats. La première lutte culturelle aujourd'hui qui existe est ..... entre les hommes et les femmes.

Et l'impact négatif d'un déséquilibre homme femme sur la population est attesté par les troubles consécutifs à l'enfant unique en Chine d'une part, et la pratique de l'échographie dans les castes riches en Inde d'autre part. Ca nous dit 2 choses : l'impact sur le vieillissement des populations menace la capacité de financement des retraites et risques d'handicaper les générations suivantes par le torchage de cul des séniles et l'apparition de populations entières de célibataires inutiles bourrés de testostérones.

Bref, pourquoi l'accent circonflexe fait CHIER.

Parce qu'il est une énième farce à la 1984. La première corruption dans 1984 est celle des mots, de leur sens et de leur orthographe. La réduction sémantique des termes et les raccourcis.

Ce n'est pas le circonflexe qui fait chier, mais cette tendance à vouloir changer NOS mots à nous, et notre écriture.

Tu vois réduire tout ceux qui se posent des questions sur les réfugiés à l'équation manifestant = raciste c'est con, et ça réduit notre capacité de discours ... donc à nous rapprocher.

On ne peut résoudre un problème qui n'est pas analysé par tabou. Sieurs journalistes et hommes politiques, il n'est pas tabou de dire que les différences culturelles existent et qu'elles posent problèmes. C'est pour ça qu'il y a antagonismes, surtout avec les médias et le milieu politique.

Les réfugiés sont un problème multi factoriel qui n'est pas anodin. Il est certain que cet accroissement de réfugiés a des impacts dont certains pas plaisants anticipables sans mêmes référer à la religion la race ou la culture. Il n'y a pas besoin d'être raciste ou fachos pour voir un problème à traiter sérieusement.

Juste en terme de lutte des classes et d'impact sur le marché du travail, et l'ordre publique (tu mets pas un surnombre de jeunes adultes sur-testorennés  avec un sex ratio en déséquilibre en contact avec une population mixte sans conséquences, quelque soit la culture).

Comme ils disent en pays basque, rangez vos poules les coqs sont de sortie.

On a pas besoin d'imaginer qu'ils soient différents de nous pour que problème il y ait.

Si on imagine les réfugiés pareils à nous, aussi cons, stupides, faillibles que nous en moyenne ... alors ils vont avoir des impacts dont certains négatifs anticipables et les populations sont en droit d'influer sur la politique de la nation concernant le sujet.

Ou alors, peut être que les populations souhaitent une juste compensation ... pour les efforts à venir.
Comme si on les séquestrait dans des choix qui ne représentent pas leurs intérêts sans juste compensation du préjudice subi anticipable.

Bref, peut être que le peuple souhaite qu'on le compense et le reconnaisse pour ses effort.
Genre qu'on les écoute plus, que les heures travaillées soient comptées ...

Peut être qu'il est temps de négocier et de parler ouvertement des mots et des maux.

Peut être qu'il est temps d'admettre qu'un langage ne vit que si et seulement si on l'utilise pour dialoguer, et le dialogue commence par l'acceptation des contextes, points de vue et permet l'acceptation des différences culturelles.

Pour améliorer le problème des réfugiés il va commencer par falloir accepter que le problème existe.

Pour aider à réconcilier les différences, il faut d'abord reconnaître les différences.

Et pour cela, il faut arrêter de décréter la culture l'information et leurs expressions par des institutions non représentative des diversités culturelles. La première sous représentées étant celle du peuple... de la majorité du peuple.

Franchement, les musées d'art moderne, les scènes nationales appeler ça de la culture ?

La cuisine française de restaurant reconnus en portion individuelle qui vous rend anorexique rien qu'à regarder le plat, c'est une insulte à toutes les régions de France où la nourriture est faite pour être partagée généreusement. Même ta gastronomie c'est pas la mienne.

Ne pas écouter le fromager qui pleure que l'AOC camembert permette de traiter le lait, c'est nier la culture française attachée à ce qu'une recette traditionnelle ne soient pas dégradée au nom des profits. Merde, le camembert, l'accent circonflexe de la fromagerie pour le quel nul article parût.  Journalistes, hommes politiques, vous avez laissé les grandes coopératives laitières tuer le CAMEMBERT! Merde. LE CAMEMBERT comment croyez vous que je peux vous pardonner ça et les multiples recettes de merveilles laitières qui disparaissent du faits du surcoût liés à l'adoption des réglementations européennes. Je suis Français, le crime contre la diversité des fromages français est inscrit dans ma constitution comme une attaque à mes valeurs fondamentales ! Un fromage qui disparaît, c'est un peu de mon âme culturelle qui s'éteint. J'aime la diversité.

L'accent circonflexe, c'est le coup de chaud de trop qui fait dégouliner le claquosse de sa boîte.

How education creates and could fix the tragedy of the three

Be you watching billions, reading HBR, looking at popular wisdom in Poland in Paris and in Province and the few locations I traveled to you will find a wisdom tale of the tragedy of the three.

  1. The father self made man with no qualification makes the business;
  2. The educated son take the business and stagnates it (lack of innovation);
  3. The grand son will dilapidates the familial fortune by taking unchallenged adverse to the business decisions thanks to his authority. 
A popular wisdom as old as at least 5 generations... as far as I have been able to ask. But it sounds so old ... 

Harvard BS if my memory does not fails me measured this effect to be real and have a negative impact on economy growth.

It could be funny to think that Darwin wins.

But let us look at Bill Gates Jr, Dassault family, our politicians ...

We live in a world where the growing need for relationships and capital to make a business gets increasingly rigged towards this business trends : rich's kids have a better probability at making businesses than the other one. Based solely on their birth. It rigs the competition.

I think this effect and education and demography may be playing a trick on us that may be fatal to our economies : we may be giving unfair advantages to some idiots that are so idiots that they even blindly take desicions that are adverse not only to the others but to them too.

I call this the blousons dorés effect. Blouson noir are the traditional names for the delinquents of the 70's. I have been during my life meeting quite a few of them in my sweet banlieue pourrie.

Some had to face justice. And, because it was in the old days, justice was sometimes able to make people pay their debt to the society. However, for some other poor kids that were given a too big sentence in places to rough, they would just be broken persons at the end.

So in suburbs, I faced people that used to criminal. Even sometimes telling you in their words how they are happy to have been able to be given a second chance, and how relieved they are to have been forgiven. Or utterly broken for a stupid stuff.

You learn to respect the laws, sometimes by understanding you should never do something that will results in more harm to others, sometimes by pure fear of authorities' violence.

On the other hand, in private schools rich kids doing exactly the same shits were less likely to be bothered. The legend of the famous actor's kid breaking the law while booing that is father does not watch him was true. So the kid was going into a spirale of self destruction with no limits because he was never facing the results of his actions.

Rich kids may go to jail, but the level of entry is higher and the debt they pay is lower. They are raised with an incitation to consider the laws of the cities not being there problems.  The blousons noirs with impunity ; also called the Blousons Dorés. Raised to be psychopathics jerks

I think HERE could lie a systemic explanation of why the 3rd company owner may act like a bastard not caring about the community.

For this effect to take a non darwinian turn since it should normaly result in random 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation that should just make a background noise, it would require an external constraint to trigger a 1st generation raise 3 generations ago. It also requires a mechanism of reinforcement.

Let's see what happened 75 years ago .... Oh ! World War II and the raise of the public state regulated education.

What happened during WWII that was so important? People died. Skilled ones, and business men. It made the economy dynamic for 30 years (one generation). Then economy has been stagnating (2nd generation), and now economy is going down (3rd generation ruling).

As if a synchronized tragedy of the 3 could be the main motor of our economy. Do the rich get richer? Yes. Do business men take decisions that are adverse to their business? Well Über in its brand documents wishes to make self driving cars ... it is kind of going against their business model and antagonizing their providers.

And you see, there is a stuff I love : science and its critical thinking and its pride at thinking problems can be understood and maybe later solved.

My model is Marie Curie. She had some strong antagonisms with the academic institutions disliking her sex and her habit to live the way she wanted. She thus decided to not send her kids to school. And also, because it was an heavy task, she agreed with other bright person to mutualize this. It was called la coopérative.

This amazing women gave amazing kids that both were remarkable scientists that made more than staying in the steps of their parents, but also fought against the invasion. They even invented for the need of resistance a very nit variation of the Molotov cocktail that is way more frightening.

It is said that some Swiss "dynasties" of great searchers also appeared this way.

What are the base of the education they gave to their kids? Well a traditional greek education (I think it is a nice idealization). In the greek civilization some  thought that education was about learning people everything without prejudice and make them develop their artistic, literacy, scientific, philosophical and physical education without no other guides than the development of the kids without any other purpose than letting them discover who they were. Eton's ideal kind of education without the grades. Education was not for every one though :) and it was up to every one to figure what education was.

On the other hand Sparta's education was military education. It gave good results too with a very nice cast system and a ratio of 1 citizen for 10 slaves that would hardly revolt or question the system. State enforced education.

In the story of greece it is said that once a peasant become a tyran and overthrew a crooked regim and was so cool the city loved him and wished for his son to be the next tyran.

In this eventuality, he raised his kid to the best kind of education possible. And the kid studied with pleasure.

And once, his father came to him saying I am gonna retire, it is your turn soon.

And the kid said; I must decline. My education taught me to respect the tyran you where, but I will never be able to do be as good as you. You made a better city caring about the others because your own existence was hard. And this suffering from your life taught you something I cannot have learn by being surrounded by constant attention ; I am not fit to be your successor. And the father was proud and saw that his kid had indeed profited of a good education. So, caring for the city, he is said to have decided without the help of his son to design a regim that could avoid this situation.

And the myth says it is how democracy (with random pickup of the population) was invented, as a way to make sure that the opinion of the whole community is not too biased towards the reproduction of the elite.

It is said that this city ranking in Greece went very well for a long time, but periclited the day they let a minority of a few person with an awful lot of money took control, and that this democracy perverted in a Republic became an horrible imperialist force throwing the old greek civilization into its end.  Because the warfare efficiency went at the price of infringing all the taboos of the civilization killing it in the process.

Sometimes military victory can come at the price of annihilating yourself and your own cultural values. Like state torture, deception, killing people without trial,  reduction of freedom are fundamentally antagonizing values of our civilization.

So my point is the following, we should question the values our education are giving before we destroy our civilization.

We blindly accept mechanism favouring through inheritance dynasties by having dual standards.
We also have an education that does not seems to learn critical thinking but obedience to the rules and we are evoluting in direction of a Spartan regime.

We should break the reinforcement of both inheritance and poor education. I do not think that inheritance is the biggest problem. I think that the lack of social mixity and critical thinking harm our civilization more than anything else. And that it should be time to rethink the purpose of education and what living together means.

I am not saying econmy is "tragedy of 3" driven. I just try to illustrate that there is a scenario where reinforcing it, and synchronizing it could result in a global economical collapse and that we should aim at making everyone smarter not more obedient.

L'académie française des arts et des lettres must die

Il était une fois une langue ... euh pardon des langues parlées dans un pays appelé la France.

La France, pays inventé de toute pièce par la conquête et le rapiéçage de différentes population arrivées là par hasard ou présentes depuis longtemps.

Puis des chefs de bandes violents et sanguinaires décidèrent en utilisant la loi du plus fort de s'approprier la population comme une vulgaire marchandise. On appelle les familles les plus influentes de gangsters consanguins qui ont asservi les population européennes des Rois. Les mérovingiens, les capulets, les bourbons, windsors ... qui au lieu de se taper dessus préféraient envoyer les gens se faire tuer pour eux.

Des gens divers : Celtes, Alains (parlant Allémanique), Francs, Vandales, Occitans ... vivaient en relative bonne intelligence pourtant. Des religions diverses co-existaient : Cathares, Catholiques, Protestants, "païens", athés ... aussi.

En tout cas, parce que ce pays était divers en ressource et paysage, il était nécessaire d'échanger. On appelle ça l'économie. Pour ça, il fallait une espèce de langue commune.

Ainsi émergèrent aux interfaces des bassins de peuplement des méta langues de communications.
A certains endroits dans ce pays on disait oï pour oui d'autre oc. (langue d'Oïe, langue d'Oc).

Diversité qui rendait le pays ingouvernable pour des rois particulièrement autocratiques : ces gros cons de Louis XIII (Richelieu) et XIV notamment, mais leurs prédécesseurs étaient pas forcément plus sympas. Il instituèrent non seulement la religion d'état qui leur donnaient la légitimité de Dieu pour justifier leurs exactions, ce qui entraîna les massacres des "infidèles", mais aussi la nécessité de codifier une langue unique pour donner des ordres à toutes la population. Une langue pour tous les gouverner. C'est ainsi que tel l’œil de Sauron naquît l'académie française et que tel l'anneau unique un langage fût codifiée pour transmettre efficacement la volonté du Roy.

Le français était spécifiquement la langue des puissants, de l'administration royale. Celle des édits.

Les vassaux étant eux même de différentes origines les lettrés de l'époque (comprendre les moines et prêtres de l'église catholique romaine qui rêvait depuis la chute de l'empire romain du retour d'un empire unique catholique et travaillaient main dans la main avec l'autorité) s'y attelèrent. Ce fût donc une tentative de codification des patois de commerce qui permettaient aux population de communiquer avec du latin de bénitier dedans en une langue de contrôle. Évidemment on prit comme modèle un de ces patois : celui parlé à la cour à Paris (oui le palais royal n'a pas toujours été à Versailles) et il fût amélioré par les clercs qui voulaient imposer le latin de l’Église. Le français est un compromis entre la volonté hégémonique des rois et celle de l'église dans une construction artificielle. Le mot parisianisme pour dénoter ce matage de nombril linguistique n'est pas exactement récent.

Comme Louis XIV avait  failli être zigouillé par les poussées régionalistes et au vue de ses énormes ambitions, il décida de tuer ce qui était pour lui la cause de ces problèmes : le régionalisme et la diversité culturelle. Ainsi naquit la fiction d'un peuple français uniforme parlant une langue commune. Le français était avant tout un outil de domination culturelle. Quand la presse de Gutenberg arriva, Louis XIV afin de contrôler les idées créa la base des brevets et du droit d'auteur : les lettres de patentes (patents en anglais).

Cependant, on peut décréter, mais décréter n'est pas gagner.

Les populations résistaient ingénieusement :  troubadours et ménestrels pour les lettrés, colporteurs pour le peuple échangeaient sous couverts de commerces et chansons leurs mots.  Ainsi la moitié des berceuses parlaient de cul, de révoltes sous le couverts d'une codification en contexte haut (imagé).

C'est ainsi que l'argot obtint ses lettres de noblesses comme un ensemble de techniques permettant malgré l'institution d'une langue unique d'entrelacer des sens cachés. L'argot langue des ignobles (non nobles). Langue des marchands, des révoltes et des malandrins. Parce que s'opposer à l'autorité centrale en tentant de communiquer à couvert n'est pas un problème nouveau. Et le révolté était criminel. On a pas attendu internet pour créer une surveillance de masse et une tentative de domination culturelle globale des populations et vouloir centraliser les médias.

On pourrait imaginer que la Révolution française notamment portée par les Jacqueries aurait supprimé cette dictature de langue. En fait elle le fît. Seulement, un club d'ancien pilier du système n'aimaient peut être pas le Roi, mais aimaient bien l'efficacité du système. Ces connards à l'origine de la Terreur s'appellent des Jacobins. Les jacobins comme beaucoup de critique des 1% aujourd'hui se voyaient surtout calife à la place du calife.
Ils remirent au goût du jour non seulement l'académie française, mais aussi renforcèrent la centralisation administrative ainsi que l'imposition institutionnelle d'une culture artificielle de façade à des fins de domination.

Pour contrer la légitimité d'une autorité centrale de droit divin, ils inventèrent -notamment pour couper l'herbe sous le pied des bretons qui résistaient à la centralisation culturelle- le fameux mythe du "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois" basé sur une pseudo science qui restera pendant longtemps la marque de la France, et résultera avec la création de la police scientifique (CSI avant que CSI soit cool) dans la justification des pires idées sous la forme de théories pseudo scientifique appuyant des horreurs telles que le racisme et la colonisation. Les Gaulois en terme de mythe pan-français précèdent les bons Aryens du pan-germanisme. La justification morale du racisme, des frontières et de la colonisation appuyée par l’Église devint "scientifique" (Merci Cuvier, et certains universalistes) appuyée par les académies (sciences et lettres).

Avant Mussolini, Hitler, Staline, la France a été le premier état à imposer par le truchement d'institutions règlementaires le comment "bien penser, bien lire, bien écrire". Déniant au peuple le droit d'exprimer sa culture et ses idées. Le rayonnement culturel de la France est une vaste blague. Il était imposé par la force et la conquête et le besoin d'une langue centrale de commandement et transmis par l'école obligatoire.

Cette langue artificielle qu'est le français utilise des règles innommables pour sa construction, qui ne respectent pas l'usage. Elle était et reste un instrument implicite de sélection et de justification des élites.  L'académie, survivance du moyen âge, qui sélectionne ses membres par cooptation d'élites ne fait qu'enterriner les usages de la haute. Haute société pratiquant l'entre soi qui légitime son pouvoir au sein d'école "ouvertes" à tous en utilisant la sémiologie pour s'entre aider. Le poids des oraux dans les examens, les taux d'échec scolaire dans l'apprentissage de la langue en fonction de l'origine sociale dénote de la survivance de ces pratiques de domination culturelle informelle. L'académie française ne fait qu'amplifier la voix des maîtres

Nulles surprises de voir l'INSEE montrer que la sélection dans les grandes école, clés du pouvoir économique et administratif favorise tout autant les fils de notables que les fils de professeurs. La religion a été laïcisée sous le couvert de la science et de la culture. On appelle ça les institutions. Les curés modernes s'appellent des profs et cadre supérieurs de la fonction publique. Les profs qui quand ils descendent dans la rue pour avoir plus de moyens pour "améliorer l’ascenseur social" sont abjects au vu de la réalité des chiffres. Ils sont les curés pédophiles de la méritocratie. 

Donc quand l'académie française veut supprimer l'accent circonflexe, qui est une survivance de notre proximité avec les autres peuples, je suis fin de putain vénéré.

Une forest, une fest (festif/festoyer), un hostel, un hospital sont autant de mot qui nous rapprochaient de par leur graphie des autres peuplades européennes. Je vois dans ce symbole une volonté centrifuge culturelle, une marque d'éloignement de la vocation des langages à communiquer.

Quand la bible évoque la tour de Babel et le chausse trappe que représente la segmentation des langues je suis étrangement d'accord. Diverger de ce qui est commun aux autres peuples est une connerie quand on souhaite coopérer.

Une langue a pour vocation de communiquer, d'échanger, de dialoguer ... de se rapprocher. Non de diverger. On devrait sérieusement ré-éxaminer la légitimité de l'académie française ainsi que des nos institutions éducatives et culturelles. Et remettre la culture populaire au centre de nos gouvernances.

L'école, la culture et l'administration française moderne sont en tout point homéomorphe aux structures centralisées de Louis XIV, Napoléon et autres tyrans qui ont fait tirer sur le peuple par leurs chiens de gardes.

La France ne pourra pas changer vers un meilleur respect du peuple tant que ses institutions de contrôle héritées et conservées de l'autoritarisme sont là.

Et je prédis face à l'augmentation de l'inéquité fiscale, de la dette publique (pareilles à celle accumulée par les rois de France puis plus tard par la République), de la reproduction sociale des élites la nécessité d'une nouvelle convocation du tiers état. L'élite et le peuple ne peuvent pas constamment diverger sans conflits.

La France a loupé la conclusion de la Révolution. Mais l'idée de pouvoir résoudre les problèmes par l'écriture de cahiers de doléance et la mise en présence des parties prenantes dans l'espoir d'un dialogue véritable me semble la meilleure idée que la France ait eue. Elle dépasse de loin l'utilisation de la violence et de l'autorité comme méthode de résolution des conflits.

Il faut admettre qu'autant le français populaire est une belle langue permettant le rapprochement autant l'académie est son pire ennemi qui abhorre sa capacité de rapprochement.

Fuck les académies. Toutes les académies.

Search engines, please add temperature to your settings

The web is big. It is a network which value is to be connected. And we need an index to access it, else information are lost. It is called search engine. And I think they function to well.

Okay some engines are plain unusable. I am talking about the good ones.

What is a document's meaning?

It is at first approximation a vector in a non orthogonal multi dimensional base constituted by the invariant form of words with their occurrences.

This vector points to a direction. For describing this direction we use "key words".

You can visualize it as a transformation of a whole text into "the smallest canonical non reducible key words" that are idempotent to a bigger text. Like a mapping to the space of sets of words to a sub space of set of words. Key words forming a new base to express the meaning of thousands of words in a synthetic way. 

A documents contents can be easily expressed in a base of key words that are "strong meaning full words". You can thus reduce language and ideas without to much loss of meaning.

These vectors can be measured and you can make normalization, cross products, scalar product.

A scalar product is a projection of a vector on a vector and it results in telling you how much time vector A is compared to vector B. Hence, you can after normalization sort easily and compare text that are similar to the key world ideal texts. You can also "compress with loss" a text in a smaller base  made of key words. This what being a base is. A reduction to the smaller set of dimensions that are orthogonal. A reduction of the degrees of liberty. Geometrically, it makes sense.

Given the fact we have very fine tools in Euclidean geometry, with 2500 year old knowledge it is a very convenient way to represents text.

There are some caveats of course.

At the opposite of school geometry, the base is not complete... language are not all constructed the same ... there are more than one form, ambiguities ... This is what NLP deals with. And it is freaking harder than doing geometry. But I am focusing on geometry right now. I consider NLP as an accidental problem not an essential one on this topic.

The meaning of a word can change according to the context meaning that "diagonalisation" requires to sometimes degenerate a dimension (word meaning) in more than one according to the other words.

Words have a little uncertainty in their meaning. And a small step for an algorithm is not a step for a staircase.

So... how do you actually make the magic of compressing a 10k word document into 1 or more keywords?

The way it is done is by taking human beings that are very good at tagging text and let them define the keywords for corpuses of text. And learn. I guess machine learning automate this process. You can by using enough tagger "diminish the bias" of the human taggers with statistical treatment used in everyday experimental activities. It works.

You can  make a statistical analysis to then determine according to the input what is the separate probabilities for one or n orthogonal dimensions (made of a linear combination of words or a single one from the input text) to appear when a given keyword is given. Xhi² is a great tool for this. You measure positive, negative contributions and you also for each dimension considered check it is not random. For instance "the", "that", "a", "an" tends to not be correlated to any keywords so you can filter them out as not being part of any basis of any keywords. You diminish the degrees of liberty without loosing meaning.

You deduce from this or other methodologies from a learning corpus ways to guess keywords from frequential analysis. (text to keyword)

Of course, you can use meta data to change the occurence (tittle can be considered more heavy than words in the chapters/section/paragraph)

Then, you can just do cosinus similarities from the sets of "ideal documents" triggered by the keywords matching score using distances. Distances following the imperative properties of being defined normed and positive. So you can actually choose other norms than L2 (classical euclidean norm).

It gives you a relation of order thus a ranking.

Until now, I am fine with this.

I guess machine learning comes into handy for over industrializing this.

However one thing bugs me. As much as the difference between precise and exact.

Feedback loops... with amplification.

S = - k . ln(O)

What makes information is having the less numerous  more relevant choices being shown to you over the whole corpus of information. The "first page" accuracy.

Basically search engine relevance tends to minimize absolutely the informational entropy. Which seems a good goal.

If a kid ask for a recipe of a cake and fall on porn this is not cool.

However, because of using the "network/social/link/domain" context, we introduce a feedback loop based on how much "other people" rate the keywords validity. And without being a wizard, I guess mathematicians already guessed that collecting data on the "personnal" context of a user help increase the relevance based on what you expect and what your social context tends to find relevant.  And it is cool too.

If I need to do text processing, it might point me to the "state of the art" if my neighborhood are professional. In a professional context it standardizes the education. Leading you to stuff like stackoverflow where discussion happens and letting you avoid a lot of pit traps. To be honest I don't know if search engines go as far as using sociogram as an input. But, that would increase the relevance of keywords in a given social context. 

And, for instance if I ask a keyword for something ambiguous on which I am biased, it is better for increasing my liking of the results to show me what I like initially.

Just like when you go on youtube ask for "joe dassin" and when you are a metalhead (like me) youtube will show you on the next suggestions a lot of joe dassin and metal. Not rap, or traditional music, or whatever. Just metal. (it is much more like a moving average with a weight  decreasing over time to be honest, but still this is accidental not essential).

It is indeed what I like and I am often pleased with it, and I do indeed make some nice discoveries.

It also reinforce my biases with time. I go on youtube sometimes to be surprised, to discover stuff.

And I feel cornered into a caricature of my own self.

And I fear that most of us of get  reinforced in our own biases. But these are just feelings and theories and vague intuition. Nothing tangible.

I guess with time and enough data about people's query over time we could measure if my hypothesis are real or not. We could measure the evolution of the musical choices and diversity of "patterns" in playlist according to the age of persons over time. (melodies, arrangements, artists, ....) and we could influence people's culture.

Clustering of opinions reinforced by social networks.

This one is simple. Some people don't want to change. Some people don't want to hear the earth is flat, other it is patatoidal, and some spheric.

Me, I love Sir Terry Pratchett's Disc world and Erasthothènes and watch NASA pictures of the earth. So I am okay with all the possible shapes of the earth. Even the ring shaped earth from Niven's SF.

However it is not everybody's case, and  some people with biases prefer to concentrate in clusters of reading/writing that are mutually enforcing belief....  like some conspiracy theorists.

For instance we all fear propaganda from terrorism on the internet. But how does it happens you never randomly fell on one of these sites, and oppositely how can this person never get in touch with your culture? You know they exist, but you never had the occasion to speak with them and magic of humanity happening sometimes help them turn into better persons. You could also fell for their idea to be honest. So should we be scared?  Are some people irreversibly bad?

I am a great fan of Periclès. He used to say "polemic is life".

The world of progress (as opposed to immobility) comes from ideas not words.

Words are imperfect media for ideas, because ideas are grey, intangible, a moving target ...

And for this moving target to progress, it requires dialog/exchanges that are not always comfortable. Yes basically I say polemists (called trolls nowadays) are a necessary evil of all progressive regime. Do we need progress? Tell me : is the world in a trajectory you like? Is global warming cool? Are wars cool? Is terrorism cool? Is the increase of pollution, poverty cool?
Well, I don't benefit any of these, so my own personal contextual selfish answer is no. I want society to progress. Can I do it alone? No. So I have to able to be in touch with other people and dialog.

Making people see what they want above all at my own personal opinion (I share with myself) goes against the acceptation of diversity of points of views and dialog.

Search algorithm will get all the more precise that the feedback loop will  reinforce the contextual meaning of them.

But exact is not precise. pi = 3.14159 is precise. pi = 4 [+- 2] is exact in Euclidean geometry. pi = 4 is both exact and precise in Taxicab geometry.   

A potential solution to this unproven problem ?

In multi agent simulation based on physical statistics they used to model people's rationality in accordance to Fermi Dirac or Maxwell Boltzman distribution of energy. As if "economical agent" were rational but for modeling the uncertainty/irrationality of human behaviour they would add a factor temperature. Something saying : well there is a clear advantage for agent X to behave this way, BUT you never know. This temperature factor could vary more or less. A parameter you could set in accordance to real world observations. Basically you'd replace a fully deterministic algorithm by one tainted with some randomization. The "amount" of randomization being related to its physical equivalence of temperature.

In some model magnetic model could be used to model the influence of the neighborhood. Sometimes positively (better use the same software as industry is demanding) sometimes negatively (I don't want to wear the same shirt as my neighbor).  

What I loved was a simulation on the behaviour of the fish market in Marseilles.

They had a simulation that basically validate an experimental strategy used by buyer that was to be loyal to ONE buyer (because you get discounts for instance), but sometimes explore the competition in case the remaining competition either increase its competivity or your buyer decrease.

Trust you are right, but check.

These simulation were not the true world. Sometimes they were matching experimental evidences though. And making the market converge to less instability in prices, less fish thrown away.

However some stuffs were perturbing. In a simulation without temperature the agents can evolve in non interacting clusters or in constant noise.  Both cases would lead to an unstable market with a global loss of utility/income for everyone. Lose - lose situations.

Another stuff was perturbing if you made the "influence" parameter recomputed every turn according to the distance and effectiveness of the influence, the more a cluster was polarized and strong, the more it would make itself harder, and could become irreversible and the compensation in temperature to fix this states would go higher. Making the problem non reversible.

Slowly ghettoing people in their own behaviour.

When I look at my social networks, they all seem clusterized this way .. in a sort of progression of radicalization of opinions.

I do feel a disturbance in the increased use of algorithm that works to well to show me what I want.

Actually my little brain could be wrong. Who am I to question the smartest engineers in the world when I a kind of small imperfect person on the Internet?

Maybe you are perfect. I am not. I am human, I do err, I do make mistakes, and I like to believe in my capacity of correcting myslef. For this, I need to be exposed to "noise".

Please dear search engines, give me back my capacity to lower my biases and give me a setting for loosing the "precision" on your result. I want a stupid button ranging from "I don't want to see noise 'cause I am focused on technical problem solving it the one best way" to "I am in the mood for exploring the world and question myself and see totally crazy surprising stuffs".

I would gladly accept to be "polarized" in the one best way of thinking if first I believed in a non ambiguous proven immutable truth, and also if it did not resulted in increasing the violence of the exchanges. Something about this could trigger instability and violent moves at my opinion.

And I dare say it could be measured. By applying measures of the entropy on searches over time. But economically I fear there are indirect incentives for polarizing people's opinion when you are both judge of what is relevant and benefit from directing people in comfortable clusters that generates revenues. Why do not we want to see it? Because, we all enjoy to live a peaceful life without conflicts. Sometimes like a frog in water slowly heating and so numbed by comfort we forget to jump out of the water when temperature gets critical. 

But, I am not like every frogs I also want to see what I do not want so that I can apply my own critical judgement to my own self and improve.

I could use more than one search engine you think like on a fish market. But actually we know one engine has the biggest overall relevance that also influences the direction of the other ones. So maybe the "temperature" factor is fubar for this case and we may rely on the big elephant in the room to wake up.

I just wonder if by avoiding small conflicts now for comfort we are not building up a bigger more violent one later.

Tcl/tk vs the web : we should abandon web based technologies.

Long before firefox & modern browsers existed, we had to do stuff like visualizing graphically and interactively simulations in physics.

So in 1996 I learnt Tcl/Tk. At the same time it was the heavy client realm based upon java. Java awt is a descendant of Tk (oak).

I speak french. My theoretical cognitive load for speaking everyday is 350k words + extra thousands of slang plus grammar. I am very much into slang. However french being a high context language, it is estimated that a mere 600 words vocabulary is enough to understand and guess the remaining.

I have a tad of german, spanish and english also loaded in my skull. And talk and exchange with people.

When I compare to computer languages they seem pretty pathetically easy: from 50-200 reserved keywords. That maybe the reason why I have practiced 13 of them. From Forth to VHDL going through C(?|++|#) python, Perl. I left PHP because of the 5000 inconsistent reserved keywords. I was thinking it was insane. When facing in my last years the deprecation of my old languages (I did Perl and C# too), I chose python over ruby because ruby had so many useless methods on stuff like lists while python was small and consistent.

However most of my programming in python (even though I learnt myselft a tad of python-tk) has been to deal with : making the stateless HTTP connection stateful by handling sessions, javascript, and angular for making application bi directional and asynchronuous.

My real cognitive load for web programming includes the HTTP stack, MIME encoding so that spamassassin & al did not blacklisted our mails (I rewrote smtplib in python 2 to handle PHP kind of bug that have pissed me of), SSL cipher suites,  resource exhaustion in middle ware, DNS, OS issues ... and reinventing the wheel.

I had to deal with poorly coded rewrite of expect, the box model of CSS, dealing with the "dependency hell" in js, callback hell in js.

But why are we using web in the first place?

Because of hype and stupid sysadmins that blocked everything but HTTP protocol (Deep Packet Inspection might block TCP:80 because people are scared it could be an SSH server with tunneling enabled on the other side).

Also because in the 2000 good coders were hard to find. Especially thinking asynchronously.

I learnt microelectronics. I coded a device driver for linux. Asynchronuous thinking is the basic of microelectronics (VIA, ACIA). You cannot self teach it yourself. Some knowledge require apprenticeship. Human limitation: words do not magically jump in your brain.

So people figured that HTTP with their "native widget" and synchronuous kind of programming could be cool. In fact it was the porn industry.

Porn industry in the 1990s invented : chatrooms, e-commerce with visa card, dynamic contents.... and ubiquitous content delivery without fear of being detected by any "black list/antivirus/safe guard". I met one pornmaster. They often were one man armies self taught and not software engineers but they cared about time to market and costs. The one I met was a technical writer. But he was making profits.

They were so good that web agency (at least in France) would suck their websites change the pictures and resell them for  at least 10 000 $.

And in front java GUI was requiring a lot more money to develop and operates the servers.

Why did not tcl tk had any traction?

Because java was the language that was taught with all the OOP, structured object messaging that was a promise to solve distributed problem challenge. Corba, DCOM, RPC was the way to do client/server.

Company hired educated engineers to be CTO pushing the tools they were "brainwashed" to work. The decision makers. The same guys that in France decided TCP/IP could not worked because it was designed by scientists and not serious engineers. Cyclades, ATM were to be the good protocols.

And pOrn industry powned their asses. So everybody said ... hey let's do what actually works else we are dead! 

It is called a law of externality. As soon as it was adopted it became the defacto standard of the industry because: it was less expensive to hire self taught programmers than students that had loans to pay. The education bubble fueled by post wwII need to replace dead skilled workers. The stuff that has enabled USA able to build their new techs with the subsidies of education from Europa.

Maybe most programmers are not exactly engineers but however inefficient actual superior education is, it beats no education. And the offer supersedes so much the demand that coders are very cheap compared to what they produce as values. Plus without union/diplomas they are unable to negotiate or defend themselves collectively. And IP laws are literally ripping the actual patrimonial and moral rights of coders.

So ... do we do web for the right reasons?

I think not.

Let's review why Tcl/Tk is way better than the web stack.
 TL;DR : a long list of reason why Tcl/Tk is more interesting than web. And what it proves concerning our stupidity. And the conclusion is how to efficiently use tcl/tk in the optic of its design : as a very good gluing language that thus makes most of the actual needs for frameworks disappear...

It has a while loop that waits infinitely and it is really annoying.

Well so does tornado, and any other asynchronuous frameworks.

Everything is string. 

Well it was built for unix where everything is a string. So are mail, web pages, messages. String at least do not have endianness problems.

And tcl Tk type coercion from string is way more sane than JSON, javascript, PHP, python ....

You need an interpreter

Well, a web browser is a JS interpreter too. Plus in 20+ years Tcl/Tk is only 24Mb with rarely all the insanity of having to use jquery to solve incompatibility with different versions of the same browser.

You have to install an interpreter while web is ubiquitous

Well I call this the Stockholm syndrome. Being forced to make choices that are wrong does not make them right. However who uses the default web browsers?

And how safe is it to not update your web browsers?

Tcl/Tk has very few versions. And does not have the constant delivery insanity that made version numbers disappeared. And Tcl/Tk does not SPY on you.

And it is pretty sanely slowly delivered without too much regressions. 

I can execute remote code from everywhere "securely" thanks to Oauth/HTTPS

Tcl have modules. Tcl can do TCP/IP and other protocols, even HTTP. Tcl has cryptographic libraries. And you know what? You can tunnel clear text easily with TLS tunnels. You can ask LDAP for credentials, you can talk to the system that already have the informations on the users.  If you are crazy enough you can even use the ancestor of Oauth that is Kerberos token.

Web browser are supposed to be sandboxed. So every systems stuff are reinvented. Tcl/Tk is not an autistic process it can ask the system for information that are already there. It can even talk to your ssh agent. 

Plus https relies on central authorities that have proven to be less than trustable when it comes to government issues.

It is not portable

Tcl/Tk is 24Mb portable cross platform. You can even easily have it on embedded system. Firefox, python, ruby, Perl, chrome, safari are all bigger.

And, wonders of old programs, you can share the logic between servers and client by the use of module.

Yes, at the opposite of node & client side js, tcl/tk can really share sanely code with no differences of behaviour.

It does not show web pages

You can use an html canvas. 

It is not C/ python.

Well, tcl make binding on external binaries easy. It has the classical pack/unpack function to translate data from binary memory structure into ... strings.

It is not strongly typed, nor functional.

In asynchronous programming you rely heavily on clocks. Clocks are mutable. They are finite state machine whatever you are doing.

But still, you can do higher order functions if you love the thrill of coroutines//functional.

Strong types would be nice if OS inter process communication were natively strongly typed.

Unix relies heavily on pipes, and doing fork/dup/pipe is very easy in any languages (especially in C) on every OSes. By default, strings have no bytes ordering problems. They are portable.

Which make tcl a very social language that can be talked to through any streams.

You can import "parsers" for handling data types the way you want : integer, floats, entier, decimal for instances.

Why negate the truth? The computers rawest communications are string based. All our broken overhead do not always worth the price of having language + grammar for communicating.

HTML requires a broken XML parser. JSon requires an interpreter. CSS requires yet another parser.

It may not be functional, but it is functioning. Why not have "drivers" instead of stacks?

With Tcl you can flatten the stacks.

It does not have messaging/rabbitmq ... 

It has pipes that are atomic at the concurrence of PIPBUF.

It has EXPECT. I have seen people using cli interaction has messaging for instance to talk with routers, with a shell (over ssh), or deamons (asterisk, zebra...) and stumbling on the problem of interaction with stateful connection.

Expect is sane. Because states are required in asynchronuous. Trying to avoid facing the problems with layers of abstraction that hide the problem and try to flatten asynch in nice linear code is stupid.

You WILL have callbacks in asynchronuous. And the more layers the more states and callbacks need to be handled. So expect expects callback on premises.

States are inherent to asynchronuous communications better deal with it than hide it.

It does not have CSS

Widgets are objects that inherits from one another from root to bottom. They inherit attributes that are basically the exact equivalent of CSS. Basically these can be mapped to a JSON tree. It is equivalent BUT!

But tcl does not mix insanely the placement of objects with the apparence of them.

The CSS box model is shit.

tcl tk instead have geometry managers with features such has : put this box at this place and let a constraint based algorithm expand the widget the way you want.What a bright idea, let software do the hard job for you instead of letting programmers and designers do stupid grunt jobs without any business added value.

I like python ... ruby, java, c#, c++ .... and I don't want to program in this sub Perl insanity

Me too. python-tk is there for you. It is used by matplotlib and that is another secret of tck/tk: thanks to the C libs of tcl you can easily embed it in another language.

Tcl Tk is so social it can either pilot other languages or be piloted by other interpreters.

You can do a #include "tk"  you can use expect, you have R bindings ....

We are in 2016 one language do not do everything right, use languages that are social instead of socializing language through the http stack//cookies insanity.

Basically programming paradigm should have switched to the use of gluing languages has the top stack language and specialized one for the handling of specific issues.

ASM for speed. C for reuse of the existing stuffs, R for stats, matlab for signal processing...

It should be social not only with static stateless libraries  but also with stateful dynamic interpreters.

 What Tk really is

Tk is a sane GUI event driven model that does the boring work for you. It is just an extension of Tcl, but you can embed it in ANY languages.

Tk is the original GUI model that everyone has been copying often wrongly. (Oak existed before, I got it but look who did it).

What Tcl really is

And tcl is just a Domain Specific Language for gluing. Reusing existing code/libraries. It is also very good with talking with others interpreter and interacting statefully with applications.

What Tcl is not

Tcl is no silver bullet. Just a normal tool.


What the web should be used for? 

Presenting public documents and leveraging the URI and references. Like gazette, pamphlet, schedules, encyclopedia, public domain content, government communications (like informing populations when accident happens)...

It should be signal based (signal vs noise) and used mainly to transfer content. I am not sure the web should do the styling part.

Canon printer still sux after 20 years of the same problems

So I had to print papers for my immigration.

So I had to print so much of them ~200 pages that I bought a canon printer a low entry pixma shit knowing that their ink sux : they dry fast, they cost a lot, and their cartridge refuses to print even if they still have ink. They are unfit for anything more than my needs : printing/copying with "good enough" results if you do not care about the quality. And that you don't intend to print a lot.

I forgot about the windows only stuff. And I was in a hurry.  So not only it costs a lot per page but I had to pay a windows licence. 100$. I had OEM windows: I always have been dual booting cause linux sux for games. But my "window were too old for the drivers". WUT?!

Then ink. 10-50c per pages. (why don't I have an option to tell fucking don't use color to make black blacker?).

Then after 2 changes of cartridges boom. A very old bug I know blasted in my face.

Paper don't get tracted inside anymore, because the gum from the gears get slick.

20 years old solutions: take your wife's nail file and scratch the surface of the gums. ADDENDUM I totally remember this exact same problem described in the french magazine "Le virus informatique" (edition ACBM) ~1996  and having taken the hint from there.

I worked perfectly for the first series of roll. The second I cannot access because of the cheap plastic and awkyard screws and what, for rescuing a 40$ I am not gonna lose 4 hours.

Now I have to throw a 40$ + 100$ + 60$ x 2 = 260$ for 260 pages printer.

1$ per page in direct and indirect costs is robbery. 

You know what Canon: FUCK YOU!

My printer is around 1 year old, just a tad more.

I had this problem 20 years ago and it is still not fixed.

Your engineers must be either incompetent or doing it on purpose, because what, your printer always break a tad after the legal "warranty".

Oh no! I forgot, one of my old canon laser printer that costs 300€ did not have this problem. Just because I had not the money to spend 300$ straight for thousands prints I have to pay 300$ for 300 pages.
 Because of a 20 years old problem ... that is still no rocket science and would be easy to fix if I had access to the mechanical base. 

Moral of the story: the poorer you get the more expensive everything is.