You think you have seen Gladiator but have you?

Gladiator: You missed the whole point. The thing I love about the original Gladiator is the whole film sits behind a layer of subtlety which allows you to view the whole film as an allegory - a postmodern allegory - of the media, historic fable, story telling and the intermingling of fact and fiction found in myth.

It's like this, and you probably need to see the film twice. First you take it at face value. Maximum is an archetypal story hero dating back the protagonist of classical Greek theatre which is retold in various ways through bond films a solo superhero films of all kinds. Sure, masculinity (and in particular, a popular culturally idealized hypermasculinity) is relevant to the hero story but in Gladiator to not be able to see past that is to fail to see the film for what it is. It's a pastiche, which can be missed, because it does a very good job of taking itself seriously, but it is a critique of exactly that kind of story telling and it folds into its storytelling allusions to the bible story and what the reality of it may have been during ancient Rome and, more than anything, it pastiches the whole idea of black-and-white / hero v villain / the goodies v the baddies bivalent telling of morality tales. You cited simple camera shots, and here's what you're missing: It is no accident that it abuses simple classic Hollywood construction values. It visits the task of storytelling through film making techniques which are oblique references to Ben-Hur and Spartacus. It references early twentieth century film footage leading up to World War II but at that level you are still looking straight at the surface value. You are looking at a piece of cinematic modernism in the style of many classics in both the modern sense (pick any superhero story) and antique (The Iliad, The Odyssey). I daresay it's no accident it even references the imperial forces assembling the garrisons in Star Wars the crucial difference being - and what makes Gladiator so great is - in Gladiator the screenwriting is, it knows what it's doing and it signals this to the viewer and in doing so it stops being the piece of cinematic modernism it looks exactly like and become a postmodern allegory OF storytelling and mythology, and mythmaking, and media. It Knows it is not a historical account. It gets the fact it's dramatized. So, the secret to the film opens up to you as soon as you realise it's really two things. Firstly, it's an allegory of bullshit. It intentionally throws in your face those standard topes you cite but where it goes that most filmic fiction doesn't go and what also makes it postmodern is, it asks you: "Isn't it obvious this is bullshit. History is not this two sided. It isn't bifurcated into battles between heroes and villains in every conflict not even in any conflict. People are falsely lionized, hero-worshipped, lauded and rendered free-from-sin but isn't that all just a crock of shit?". You know the litmus test for knowing if somebody understood Gladiator or not? Ask anybody who claims to have watched it "Who's the hero of the story?". Most of them are probably doing to think you are joking because the film makes it patently obvious Maximus is the hero. So just pause for a second and ask yourself... Is he? Is he really? Or is that just bullshit? Is it actually true that Maximum and the gladiators are just a sideshow as they are for the senate who view it as a sport? Are we really being pointed by sensationalism to where the action really isn't happening? Sure, there is masculinity and multiple constructions of it in the film. During the course of those it references politics, slavery, idolatry and storytelling and what the lens of retelling does to history. About the main protagonist it asks you "Hold on a minute, isn't this just bullshit?. Is that guy really a hero? Is he just a slave to his circumstances. He wouldn't be doing that if he really was a hero, would he? Is his brother really a villain? Surely his is no less than his brother merely a victim and product of his circumstances. Aren't they basically Both just bozos and isn't this obviously intentionally polarizing and plot-simplifying binary-track hero / villain story-telling just bullshit, really? Is that what really happened or is it all steeped in campfire dramatics? You also need to ask yourself: Did any of this really happen and whether any of it did or not should this simple polarizing narrative really be what we are looking at or for? That's why really what lies beneath the modernist pastiche is a far more self-aware existentialist postmodernism which really knows about its construction and is throwing that in your face for a reason. It Wants you to call bullshit on it and then try to find what's really there behind the surface gloss what's there going on outside the backbone of the feature story? What's the story behind the slave driver played by Oliver Reed? What's the story behind the man who patches up Maximus in the caged chariot? What's the story behind that little boy who seems so innocent and so kind and so nonjudgmental? What of all those other stories that are not being told? Watched at the surface level, which you certainly can, Gladiator is a watchable modern epic about a guy who just wants to be reunited with his family. Great, you can definitely take a lot from that, as you did, but what the directory wants you to do is is to want to pull back the curtain of the surface gloss and what its being thrown at you as the carefully curated fiction that you see presented on purpose and it wants you to want to dig through all that surface gloss and gels and epic filmmaking. Look harder for what's there in amongst and around it. Out of camera shot. Not just the film crew pointing the cameras and constructing the stage but what lies outside the narrators gaze. What aren't they telling you? What are they telling you that isn't true? What do they want you to believe? What are the inviting you to notice and what do they portray as unimportant? What do they want you to ignore? How much are you being manipulated simply by your participation in the process? Did you choose to watch it or, like the characters in the film, like every character in a story, like each story of every life to some extent, are are you imprisoned by a set of circumstances which made the events of your life the only possible outcome as if your path is chosen by powers outside of your control? See where I'm coming from? It looks like a modern epic but the hint to you is how it /tries so hard/ to look like a modern epic and once that surface value begins to crumble as you tear away at the veracity of the manuscript then what lies behind it is in fact a more subtle existential drama in which Maximus is no longer the hero or the person of interest and really neither is his brother. Look more closely at the other characters in the film and ask your self what are their stories. What about that little boy? Why this point in time? Why not later when he is in his 20s where will he be? What are his ambitions? What does he do? Where does he come from? What's his family background and what are the dramas of his own life? Why aren't I hearing about that instead? Who gives a shit about this Maximus person anyway? Let me recap as simply as possible: You can't really understand Gladiator.... you haven't even really /seen/ Gladiator until you watch it and from the start Question the whole purpose of storytelling. It's means and it's construction and how it directs your attention and what it wants you to notice and think about and believe. Until you start to notice how the alleged story is propped up by tropes and you start trying to tear through the surface to see what's behind it you can't really see what is to be found in Gladiator. Think about Homeric literature. Think about media. Think about Hollywood. Now, while thinking of that, extract what you can from this one line from Gladiator: "The crowd wants battles so the emperor gives them battles". Do you see? The film maker wants you to know that he's fucking with you and he wants you to ask what that really says about you and other stories where the storyteller is fucking with you. Aren't all storytellers fucking with you? Who is the real hero? Who is the real villain? If Maximus is in there killing people in their droves but that's ok because he has a higher purpose then what about the slave driver or Maximus' brother? Are you going to vindicate them too? You aren't shown inside their thoughts revealing their motives as you are with Maximus. Doesn't his brother also have a higher purpose? Isn't his brother also pressed into his actions by circumstances visited upon him by outside pressures he cannot control? If Maximus' brother is not a hero then probably Maximus isn't either. Are you really going allow your mind to be swayed by how the story has been posed and framed and shot by the person who wrote it, and for what purpose? Quote from the scene where Maximus meets Lucious: "Gladiator. Are you the one they call the Spaniard?" [...] "They said you were a giant. They said you could crush a man's skull with one hand". "A man's? No". The film actually places in one of the character's words that the making of legends is kinda bullshit. If there is a take-home message or moral it's "In any story where somebody is being lionized or villainized always look deeper. It almost certainly isn't nearly as simple as that however tragic, enraging or heartwarming the story" and "In any story you have an obligation to scrape through the storytelling to find out the truth and it's just the same whether you are taking your stories from Aesop, the bible, a serious academic work of history, or the newspaper, or just a piece of Hollywood fiction". "What other stories are you Not being told? Are there really any incidental characters or extras or do they all have their own story?", "Is important context being removed or misleading context being added to shape how you asses the character of the people involved?". Anybody who watches Gladiator and thinks Maximus is the hero hasn't really seen Gladiator. The whole point of the film is behind the surface gloss there is a more subtle and more nuanced story and I think that is what the director is trying to tell you about every variety of storytelling you encounter: The simple easily comprehended account is probably bullshit. Consider the film again but this time with Maximus' role and importance greatly diminished and sidelined in your mind as a noise distraction and seek instead to uncover the stories of every other character in the film except Maximus. Then you will start to get the film. It is mocked up to look exactly like a modern epic in the mold of Spartacus but that's garbage because it is a slightly more subtle self-aware postmodern existential drama which invites you to look at storytelling and tear off the gloss and greasepaint and see what's behind it. Tear off the polarizing structure and look a bit deeper.

Annoyances in Europe: The consequences of a totally bodged EU cookies law.

Websites of influential companies including the BBC now have punishments for exercising your rights.

What you as a user want is this:

1. Disable (default. it's an opt-in).
2. Go to a settings page (with data usage implications for each choice and externally managed spot checks so they are kept honest).
3. Disable (operator should not be allowed to change the content you can access).

Would this damage the analytics space? Yep. Probably. Who cares? We need ethics, not profits, to guide our rights. We should all be pleased that ethical legislation makes it harder to profit from unethical activity.

(Shit. Another blog post down the Facebook toilet). I'll post this to my tech blog where the government steal my ideas 😊).

What I learned from COVID with two years of hindsight.

 If there's one thing that will stay with me after lockdown, it's..... eczema. I have never had atopic dermatitis before and now I have.

It came from overuse of antibacterial handwash during peak lockdown.

Turns out, if you didn't already know, that overwashing is not a great idea because it actually washes away the acid mantle which.... hey presto...... actually protects you from bacteria. So, too much sanitising actually makes you More prone. To viruses? I don't know. This isn't my area of expertise. What I have read is you can fuck yourself up if you wash too much.

So, during lockdown I won myself an itchy rash on the backs of my hands around the knuckles where abrasive contact while washing was most intense.

It had subsided but now, maybe thanks to the fact I still take long daily baths and refuse to leave the house unless I have, the skin rash has spread. I have it on the backs of my hands and feet and arms.

I have looked it up and apparently there is no known effective treatment so I have had it now for three years.

I also don't really believe the government advice. Am I conspiracy theorist? Well, not really, but it is true that nobody ever seemed to really work out how it was transmitted. Everybody knew it was being transmitted but, being a respiratory sickness, it Might have been through inhalation, not touch.

The guidelines then were based on a basic understanding of the germ theory of disease which dates back a hundred years.

Because the disease was very new and the medium of propagation wasn't known the truth was that government medical advisers didn't really know what advice to give so they came up with that because... at least it's something. Not only is it something it's probably the only thing which could be done. Its why we had to wear masks too because they didn't know how you got it.

There were theories you could get it through your eyes because if the suspicious the virus was airborne was right then it could fall into your eyes like dust and make its way into your body that way. There was no advice on that because it sounded like speculation, even though it had about as much empirical backing as anything else, and what can you ask people to do? Wrap a scarf around their head? Wear swimming goggles?

So, touch and mouth where the ones which got the attention and I still haven't seen any really good research on how it is caught, because you can't. God only knows, maybe it was transmitted by insect bites? You don't know exactly how you caught it, it's too small to see in the air, so what can you look for?

What you could do is prepare different room and in each one isolate the various theories. Have a covid aerosol in one, have a covid covered surfaces in another and in a third room have covid aerosol but have everybody wear swimming goggles and see what percentage of people contract it in each room, which won't be reliable, because you probably can't account for differences in susceptibility and you need volunteers who want to expose themselves to a respiratory disease. Hey, rats and beagles, we could use your help. For ethically questionable reasons humans care less about members of other species dying. Why don't they care less about members of their own species dying? It's for their benefit and there's 8 billion of them. Humans, if you killed even a few billion people it would probably do more to help your own species, and almost everything else, than killing a few dozen rats.

So at least some of the government advice was not well grounded but based on a best guess by science advisors who didn't know what to do nor what to expect because the whole thing which made it scary is nobody knew what to expect because they hadn't seen it before.

The lesson here is in how the media capitalising on the debate by politicising it taking polemical opposite sides of the argument where one set of opinions became the left-wing view and another became the right-wing view with both sides calling the other stupid.

It's definitely a less in ad hominem since anything said by right-wing commentators was deemed wrong by the left because it came from the right-wing media, and vice versa, with both sides calling the other stupid.

Both sides had their points:

The left were right in that it is wiser to take a view from somebody qualified to talk about the subject rather than some random bozo.

The right were right in saying the advice was shady.

The synthesis of these apparently opposing sides is that, in this case, "the experts" were not specifically experts in COVID vectors because nobody was so what you got was speculative generic advice based on creaky germ theory of disease which could offer no greater specific advice in this case. So, wash your hands, you might be touching deadly germs which might wipe out the human population.

A step closer to generalised artificial intelligence.

Gemini AI is claimed to perform better in some tasks than human experts.

Years ago I read something which inspired me. The conclusion I came to then was that although computers are known to far exceed humans in some tasks in speed, accuracy and reliability, such as number crunching, there are others deemed somehow "magical" like empathy, creativity and humour. However, there is no reason at all to think computers cannot eventually exceed humans at Everything.

The denial they will begs the questions: Why? When you don't have a reason to accept a claim is true then it is at least as important to acknowledge when you also do not have a reason to believe it is false.

I now firmly believe no sort of magic exists. My take on all phenomena is essentially Newtonian to the extent I believe even things like Probability Density Functions and other strange quantum behaviour will have a simple causal explanation even if we can't discover it.

Conway's Game of Life shows us that very complex behaviour can grow from very simple production rules. The Game of Life has been proven to be Turing complete. This means using the exact same rules Conway's Game of Life uses, you can build any artificial intelligence which can be computed any other way. It would be hugely inefficient to try it but with sufficiently fast processing it could be done.

This implies to me it may not still be unreasonable to suppose the universe is some sort of vast automaton underpinned by very simple rules at the ultramicroscopic scale.

I sometimes now even think of motion as quantised and discrete in the same way the motion of gliders in Conway's game of life shows that motion can be interpreted in things which are not really moving. When am object appears to move from one place to the next it is really a chain reaction causing a phenomenon in one location to dissolve while generating another very similar phenomenon in an adjacent space. So, I think we may eventually prove motion is an illusion.

 
Gemini AI page.

The infinite regress paradox of time. A proof-by-contradiction that time cannot exist.

For time to exist it must require a mechanism through which its function is defined (even if humans are unable to discover, determine or define it)

But for such a mechanism to exist the mechanism itself would need to operate within the paradigm of time thus producing infinite regress without plausible origin.

Therefore human perception of time must be an illusion.

Corollary: Any duration of time, be it a second or the photon absorption rate by transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of a caesium-133 atom, can only be made meaningful when stated in terms of its existence as a frequency ratio of some other known recurring phenomenon. Therefore any duration of time can only be stated in terms of being a factor of some other duration of time, never having any absolute frame of reference. Consequently any concept of time is a self-referential supposition rooted in circular reasoning.

Like

Comment

Share

Let's stop maths: We started at the wrong place.

 I know that nobody else is as interested in mathematical foundations as I am, but hey, I rap about things you aren't interested in all the time. :)

This time it's the succession function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_function

It's like succ(n). Sure, I don't think there's anything much wrong with adding 1 to something, especially, but it's just that "maths starts here" thing which makes you go "WHY?". These things always seem to be some arbitrary cop-out like "We can't actually explain why we did this but, well, we felt we had to do something, and this is that thing". It isn't packaged with a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that thing should even exist and should not be discarded or replaced with something else.

You might start arguing against it by saying adding one is just a special case of adding, probably not more magical than adding 5 or 17 but I think even adding is just a special case of something else.

That way it moves up, rather than down, levels of abstraction.

I prefer a top-down approach to forming a philosophy. Beginning with the highest level of abstraction as also the most fundamental and each thing filling in at reduced levels of abstractions and more specificity.

My own starting point is a relator function. This is what I was taught at 11 in the elite-kids maths class of my middle school.

You begin with a transformer shell with no content:

->R->

The R is a label on a box. Inside the box is a mechanism which takes some form of input, does something with it, then produces output having done that thing.

That is a high level of abstraction: The set of things which do things to things.

Then in that box you can place whatever you want. Not only a successor function but addition, multiplication, a random number generator, anything you want. So, at first, the whole set of functions themselves become the most general case.

What you then have is a tool which you can use to make a kit bag of things you need for whatever you are trying to do. The kit bag of things you can make can include an axiomatic basis for mathematics and all the bits you need to do it.

I think it's time people stepped out and admitted there isn't only one possible axiomatic basis for maths and that any such basis is, at some level, quite arbitrary. So, rather than merely have a mathematical basis, I think the starting point should be the acceptance that there is an arbitrariness to mathematics as a thing. Maths is not a fundamentally existing thing but a tool, one of an infinite variety of tools and arbitrary things we could have made out of the more fundamental and highly abstract idea of things which do things to other things.

That "things which do things to things" folds in the crucial concept of cause and effect. Having defined some kind of substance and its properties you then define the things with properties which act on those things.

In that way I think existential matters, such as what are the basic laws of the universe, can escape from being placed inside mathematics. It separates the two. Real world object behaviours exist. Mathematics is something we invented and now maths is the tool we use to quantify and describe observations about real world things and how real things act on other things. However, if you want to do that then why force-fit those real things to mathematics? It means saying "Hey, we got all this real stuff and we have this tool we made so let's take this conceptual tool and use it to describe what manifests in the real world".

How about we don't? How about we first accept maths and real-world physical interactions are two separate realms? We may devise a fundamentally far more appropriate tool for describing reality than mathematics. The tool we devise may be completely foreign to mathematics and incompatible with it. We can create a tool especially for dealing with real-world physics without going via the pre-existing tool of mathematics. Not only do I think we can do this, I think we should. Let's scrub maths except for physics and what we can say about physics using maths and using that body of theory then devise a far better and more appropriate tool for coping with those real world phenomena than mathematics.

A relational operator can do this because real-world physics is still "things that do things to things" (or perhaps more fundamentally something which acts on itself) but I don't think mathematics is its basis. Mathematics is a just a tool we already had which we now use. So I say starting with "R" we can build maths, or physics, without having have both. We don't do enough to keep those worlds apart and we don't do enough to point out both of those worlds fit under the one umbrella of things and the things which change them.

High-end PC, November 2023.

 Want a top-of-the range PC? I found one for you!

The NVIDIA DGX GH200 Deep Learning Console.

Look along corridor and you will notice pairs of gold panels on both sides of the image arranged in banks of four pairs. Each single panels of those 8 is an Nvidia DGX H200 GPU.

Those GPUs cost upwards of $289,000 each.

The DGX GH200 console connects 256 of them,.

In this image you can only see about 80 so the full length of the corridor is three times the length of the gangway you see here.

It's a bit memory constrained, if you ask me. Each GPU has half a terabyte of RAM which means it only has 1.4 terabytes of RAM in total.

That means if you have a 32GB computer it only has about 4 million times as much RAM*

*This figure is not exaggeration for effect, it is an approximation. The actual value is 4,718,592. So, 4.7 million times as much RAM as a 32GB computer.

It is very hard to imagine how much it would cost and it is hard to find information as the sales department do not want to say anything which would stop companies like Microsoft and Google beating a path to their door. My estimate is it would cost something like £50 million.