Saturday, 21th November, 2009
Messing with Omegle
Most of you probably know what Omegle is. It’s a chat site. But there’s a difference. You’re connected to a random person, and it’s completely anonymous.
One past time I’ve had of late is getting some of the creepiest internet folk to talk about all sorts of insane stuff.
A fine example happened last night
Connecting to server…
You’re now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: i wanna fuck you in the ass baby
You: Have you tried taking an English class?
You: I’m quite serious, you can’t form even simple sentences.
Stranger: well
Stranger: all i know is fuck and ass
Stranger: so i put them together
You: Do you see what I’m talking about? No punctuation, grammar is all wrong. You are saying sentence fragments.
Stranger: I can put together whole sentences, but why should i bother?
Stranger: dick and ass
You: You should bother because it makes it easier to read for the other person. Wouldn’t you like to convey your wish for anal sex more clearly?
You: You would have a much higher success rate if you were clear.
Stranger: If we had something meaningful to talk about i would make an effort
Stranger: dot
You: We do have something meaningful to talk about! Your abuse of the English language.
Stranger: language is just a way to get ideas across
You: We could talk about anything! And going to English classes you’d meet a lot of ladies. Many of whom may like anal sex.
Stranger: language is flawed
Stranger: and weak
You: This whole universe is flawed. Do you see humanity just giving up?
Stranger: you are missing the point mr language barrier
Stranger: we are heading into telepathy
Stranger: and collective consciousness
Stranger: do you really think grammar will stop us
You: No, but our thoughts will have structure. That will help us convey our ideas from one individual to another.
You: In general, one thought naturally leads onto the next. There’s structure to it, it’s a form of grammar, despite being very loosely structured.
Stranger: nah
Stranger: thoughts arent logical
Stranger: unless they are
You: Mine are very logical. One thought leads naturally to the next.
Stranger: but logic is just one side of it
You: I could trace my execution perfectly.
Stranger: u sure could
Stranger: with male straight lines
Stranger: you need intuition for it to work
Stranger: naturally
You: Intuition is merely an illusion, caused by thoughts that you were unaware of being brought into your concsiousness.
Stranger: lol
Stranger: enjoy 3d
You: What is 3d?
Stranger: the third dimension
Stranger: look man
You: What about the third dimension? And why would I enjoy it?
Stranger: you have this self righteous arrogance about you
Stranger: you obviously know everything
Stranger: so why do i need to explain?
You: I do not know everything. I do not know enough.
You: Therefore, there are things that will need explaining to me.
You: Who better to explain them than you?
Stranger: and how do you know that you dont know enough
Stranger: logic?
You: If I knew everything, I would know that I know everything, since that would be in the set of things that I know.
You: I do not know that I know everything, hence it is not in the set of things that I know.
Stranger: is that logic?
You: Most likely.
Stranger: the language barrier will be broken
Stranger: but i see what you mean with the importance of spelling and grammar
You: That maybe true, however, the sheer
You: Sorry, I was retyping that last sentence.
You: The sheer volume of thoughts could have a negative effect on some individuals, causing psychological problems, or even physical problems within the brain.
You: Which could, in turn, lead to suicide or simply death.
You: Even if the “language barrier” is broken, it could be a catastrophic event.
Stranger: that is such a scientific way to look at it
Stranger: 0% spirituality
Stranger: consciousness = brain?
You: In effect, the concsiousness is an effect of the interplay of chemicals and neuron impluses in the brain.
Stranger: that is true
Stranger: but there is also a soul
Stranger: brain is part of the body
You: But there is no evidence for a soul.
Stranger: wait ill type this out for ya
You: I will wait.
Stranger: There are many religions that see the soul or consciousness as eternal and not something that dies with the body. The brain can be seen as sophisticated machinery which consciousness operates through.
You: However, no religions; or any one else for that matter; have provided compelling evidence for the soul, or for concsiousness being distinct from a person’s brain.
Stranger: the ancient egyptians have this in their hieroglyphs.
Stranger: the chakra system
Stranger: do you believe in reincarnation?
You: Reincarnation is an odd thought. The probability of my current “being” being reconstructed in it’s current state at any point in the future is almost infinitesimally small. However, if this current universe lasts long enough, then that probability beings to increase.
Stranger: why would it increase depending on the age of the universe?
You: So in a way, I do think that it’s possible, but very unlikely. Also, this universe is thought to be closed.
You: Well, let’s say the probability of me not reincarnating on a given day is x/(x+1), where x is a very, very large number
Stranger: again logic
You: The more days that progress, that will actually tend towards being more probably.
You: Apologies, I meant probable.
Stranger: life isnt an equation
You: Logic is the only tool we have to attack an issue of this magnitude
Stranger: or not just an equation
Stranger: we have intuition as well
You: But as I’ve previously said, I don’t think that intuition is anything real. Simply thought processes which we are not concsiously aware of until they’re required.
Stranger: yeah well put, and can be seen like that
Stranger: or are you just filling in the blanks with logic
You: The only way we can tackle these problems reasonably is to think about them very carefully. Take what we know to be true and go from there. One cannot even be sure that one’s own eyes exist!
Stranger: everything that exists exists
You: That is true; but it is also a tautology.
Stranger: it doesnt matter
You: It does matter, it’s an example of an irrelevant statement. For example, “That dog is a dog.”, or “The white paint is white”.
You: It adds no previously unknown knowledge to the system.
Stranger: everything is just as it is, the way that it is
You: At this current time, yes that is true. However, how do you know that “everything” exists?
Stranger: everything exists because i know that the universe is a big place with loads of things in it
You: How do you know that this universe is not simply a simulation? That you are not just a “brain in a vat” so to speak?
Stranger: well it kinda is
Stranger: at least here
You: Indeed, but what about the rest of our environment. How do you prove that everything is not simulated?
Stranger: you probably have a perfectly logical explanation for everything, i could too man. i just feel like ive surpassed that. feels like going back to the good old days
Stranger: well you cant
Stranger: or you dont have to
Stranger: because there is only one reality but infite ways to perceive that one reality
You: I don’t have a logical explanation for very much, actually. I would really like to have an explanation for a lot of things.
You: But we have no way to test that we have only one reality.
Stranger: you dont have to test it
Stranger: my intuition tells me that its true
You: We, as a species, limited by our reality, have no way to test it.
You: The limitations of our reality stop us from testing reality.
Stranger: if you could see the one reality through gods eyes then thats the test of reality
Stranger: some things are just universal truths
You: Some things are universal truths, but there are unprovable statements.
You: Within any system powerful enough, there exist unprovable statements within that system.
You: For example, the assertion that there exists a God. The assertion that there is only one reality. The assertion that this reality is real, not simulated.
You: The assertion that anything other than one’s own thought process exists.
Stranger: everyone has a unique reality tunnel
You: Everyone has the potential to percieve reality differently, assuming that they exist.
Stranger: you know about synchronicity?
You: From en.wikipedia.org: “Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. To count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.”
Stranger: yupp
Stranger: you ever experience it?
You: You mean, a coincidence?
Stranger: nah i mean a synchronicity
You: I’m fairly sure that I must’ve at some point, but I can’t think of a specific example at this time.
Stranger: you know when its a synchronicity
You: From the Wikipedia definition, it seems pretty close to being a coincidence.
Stranger: yeah its close
You: “Coincidence is the noteworthy alignment of two or more events or circumstances without obvious causal connection.”
Stranger: its not coincidence man
Stranger: it has to do with instinct and intuition
Stranger: ah u cant even explain this, just trust me, dont put the in teh same category
You: I will be away for a short while.
Stranger: its like magic
Stranger: ok
You: So, what actually makes an event synchronicity, as opposed to coincidence?
Stranger: well you know it, since there is that connection to it in a way. it is just like noooo waaay.
Stranger: i dont even know how to explain that
You: So, any two events could be synchronicity, given a high enough improbability?
You: As long as those two or more events are ‘meaningful’ ?
Stranger: yeah, usually something that you are thinking and then that happens
Stranger: its like a continuation in the external world of your internal thought processes
You: And it couldn’t be that you were thinking about something, and hence your thought process was sensitized to that thing, so you were simply more likely to notice it?
You: For example, thinking about rabbits, then seeing a rabbit.
Stranger: nah
Stranger: its not
Stranger: its more like
You: Or must it be signficantly more improbable than that?
Stranger: you are starving and need food
Stranger: you are thinking of how to get food to survive
Stranger: and then you just sit there and think food food
Stranger: and the cash machine breaks down and a 100 dollar bill pops out
Stranger: and you are the only one there
Stranger: and it happened just as you looked at it
Stranger: its like that
You: So what does a chance happening actually prove? And either way, even if you weren’t thinking about food, and a $100 bill came out of the ATM, wouldn’t you be surprised regardless?
Stranger: dont overanalyze my poor example
Stranger: it proves that there is something more than logic at work
You: That’s not true. There could be a perfectly logically explanation for something implausible happening, you just happened to walk past the ATM at the correct time.
Stranger: yupp
Stranger: and the universe gave you exactly what you needed
Stranger: the universe loves you
You: What about when the universe takes something away that you need?
Stranger: then there is a lesson
You: Through some highly unlikely improbable circumstance, that has nothing to do with you, or anything you’ve done.
You: That is to say, there was nothing you could’ve done in advance to stop it.
You: Would there really be a lesson in bad luck?
Stranger: thats too small
Stranger: and you know it
You: How do you mean too small?
Stranger: something was taken away for some reason
Stranger: well not just bad luck
Stranger: bad luck doesnt exist in this version of reality :P
Stranger: everything is just the way it is supposedto be all the time
Stranger: but there are lessons in everything, idk man. im wading up to my neck through this
You: So, for example, you’re away from home, all the way around the world. And a meteor hits your house, and efectively destroys the city you live in. There’s a lesson in there? I’d call that pretty big example.
Stranger: going nuts? nah, duality
Stranger: well, maybe it was time for you to get a new body :P
Stranger: i dont know man. i dont have all the answers
Stranger: i know some crazy voodoo shit
You: I think that the universe having a concsiousness that is concerned with us to be highly unlikely. We’re insignificant.
Stranger: according to this theory, we all made the universe together
Stranger: not just humans
Stranger: feedback loop
You: So, you’re saying our concsiousness’ combined created this universe, and not that our concsiousness’ simply reside in it.
Stranger: we create the reality we livein and the reality creates us
Stranger: the more we become in touch with it
Stranger: the better reality is at knowing what we need
Stranger: and the faster it manifests in our reality
You: But one must’ve existed before the other. The loop would never start if one did not exist.
Stranger: or it was wholebut got divived
Stranger: or the universe wanted to experience itself
Stranger: or we are all one consciousness experienceing itself subjectively
Stranger: theres no such thing as death life is only a dream and we are the imagionation of ourselves
Stranger: heres tom with the weather
You: I like the ending of that set of fragments.
Stranger: hehee
Stranger: they are fractals now woooooooooop
Stranger: sry man i gotta sleep
Stranger: its 3 in the morning hre
You: 02:14 here
Stranger: hehe
Stranger: where u from?
You: And I do like fractals.
You: I am in the UK
Stranger: swedenfag here
Stranger: fractals in nature
You: Mountains, clouds, fern leaves, acorns. There’s a lot of examples of fractals in nature
Stranger: into the microcosm and the macrocosm
Stranger: fractals everywhere
You: Each galaxy is like it’s own fractal. Lots of solar systems orbiting a black hole. Each solar system, lots of planets, planetoids orbiting a sun. Many planets have moons orbiting them.
Stranger: i think that consciouensess is a fractal
You: How so?
Stranger: well since we are eternal and every point in our timeline is the center or the present for us
You: But we don’t know if we’re eternal. We could be closer to one end of our line than the other.
You: But if we are truly eternal, than your statement is correct, but I don’t think that makes it a fractal.
Stranger: anything you do changes the fractal
Stranger: man, i gotta say
Stranger: you are a very intelligent guy
Stranger: me not so much
Stranger: had a very nice talk with you :)
You: It was nice to talk to you too.
You: I do need to sleep soon too, I have to be up early today.
Stranger: whats your name?
You: My name is Dan, yourself?
Stranger: Nikola
You: That’s a pretty awesome name, if I do say so myself.
Stranger: oh well, enjoy those trippy synchronicites xD thx
You: I’ll try, though I’m not nearly as spiritual as yourself. :-)
You: Good night, sir or madam.
Stranger: in l’akesh
Stranger: (you are another me)
Stranger: night
Your conversational partner has disconnected.
or save this log or send us feedback.
fun, eh? Assfuckery to spirituality. I am good!
Done! :-D
Wednesday, 7th October, 2009
Debugging
So this is my first post in a while, and any following ones will probably be slow coming, too. Currently, I’m visiting my girlfriend for this week, so I’m otherwise occupied being taken out to see the local bars and what not.
Next week is freshers week, and I’m a STYC. This means I’ve got to help a bunch of 17/18 year olds get drunk in a new city. Yey! :-)
Anyways, the programming bit of this post.
Part of the reason for no posts is because of by Brainfuck interpreter. If you’ve looked at the code you’ll know I’ve incorporated it into a genetic algorithm and I’m trying to evolve something useful, it’s working, very, very slowly.
I’ve been trying to make it multiprocessor using the multiprocessing for Python. No good so far, the current code in github is broken. And during this time, a thought occured to me. Debugging has been steadily getting harder and harder.
This is not just in the “My program is more complex, therefore where’s the bug” harder, I mean conceptually harder. Imagine an assembler program with no OS. It’s just you, the code and the metal. Either the error is with you, the code or the metal, take your pick.
Contrast this with Java. There’s you, the code, the compiler, the JVM, the OS and the metal. When something really odd or intermittent happens, where do you point the finger? And if you’re 100% sure you’re code is right (For example, you’ve got the same code working on a different Java compiler/stack) how do you go about fixing it? Do you write your own library class? Do you inform the developers of said compiler and JVM? Do you ditch Java and try again with a different language? There’s just so much more to go wrong. Hell, it could be worse, there could be a client/server situation. Does the issue lie with the client or the server? Did the client (Assuming it’s http like) send the right POST/GET variables? Was there a networking error.
Now you can argue, if you had 2 asm programs, client/server, some of these issues would be replicated. Hell, what if nasm or gas had a subtle bug that you triggered?
My point that I am very laboriously trying to get to is, layers of abstraction are very good for code readability, maintainability, size, reducing development time and a whole host of other things. But you have to assume that the libraries and compiler stacks you’re using are very well written and tested. I’ve run up against what I think might be a problem in this sort of area with C# .NET and Python. Python I think the specific library’s documentation is not clear enough. And when I tried to use a library class with C# it just plain failed on Windows, but not Mono (I was trying to use exclusively MSDN documented classes, as little Mono as possible).
Don’t write code without a vague understanding of what’s going happening on the metal because of your code. You don’t have to know x86 asm like the back of your hand (I certainly don’t). But at least understand what type of things are happening down there.
Done! :-D
Monday, 28th September, 2009
Baby’s First Interpreter — Follow-up
So I eventually got the Brainfuck interpreter working. I celebrated. I rejoiced. I was happy. And for a while, all was good. But this was not my goal. What good is an interpreter for a minimalistic program? I’ll tell you what. At only 8 commands, 6 that I was interested in, it was easy to press it into service.
For a while now I’ve been thinking about genetic algorithms. Not the ones where one tries to evolve a solution to a problem, like the common one of trying to evolve a good route, I mean trying to evolve an algorithm.
The genome would be the brainfuck program. And it’s fitness? How good the results it produced were. Mutation is gained through sexual (and occasionally asexual) reproduction by splicing the 2 genomes together at a random point. There’s also a low chance of adding/removing information from the genome.
At the moment, it runs, vaguely, but it doesn’t seem to evolve anything; and it does this very slowly.
For the time being, I’m going to have to consign it to the ’sleep on it’ category. Last night I was completely unable to finish the interpreter. I woke up and within an hour or two I had it completing all of my unit tests, it was very strange.
Done! :-D
Saturday, 26th September, 2009
Baby’s First Interpreter
So in a previous post I blogged about a Brainfuck to Python compiler which I quickly knocked together whilst drunk. Obviously, I wrote a compiler while drunk, therefore I must be able to write an interpreter while sober.
Yeah, right.
I’ve been trying to get it to interpret successfully for a day or so now, and I’ve got the basics worked out, I’m just trying to fix the kinks in the looping constructs.
New things learned range from “Don’t code with your head at a 90 degree angle from your body” to “If it can be abstracted away, it might be worth while trying it” and one final thought for the road “Unit Testing can be a massive help, but you have to write your tests correctly first.”
Done! :-D
Friday, 18th September, 2009
Baby’s First Compiler
So I was bored for a minute, and whilst slightly drunk, a thought hit me.
I should write a brainfuck compiler! But wait, there’s brainfuck to C already. The only examples I’d seen were brainfuck C equivalents.
> : Increase pointer by one
< : Decrease pointer by one
+ : Increase value at pointer by one
- : Decrease value at pointer by one
. : Output character at pointer
, : Read character at pointer
For fun, I also put in a debug, same as the original implementation:
# : Print debug info (Value of first 10 cells and the current pointer value)
The only real issue that I’ve found is that after every character output, Python prints a space :-(. This compiles brainfuck to Python code :-).
Ahh well
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.
Done! :-D
P.S.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.-.---------.[-]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.-.++++++++++++++++++++++++++.-------------.[-]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.