What is discussion all about?

I find intriguing, and to some degree disappointing, that so many people I know have such a hard time understanding what is a discussion about. The confrontation of ideas is more often than not perceived as a personal attack, directed at one's personal belief. People tend to misunderstand the meaning of Ad Hominen attacks, while their ideas are being confronted, in the two possible ways: they either think the confrontation is personal, or they use the ad hominen subterfuge to gain leverage in the discussion. This usually only leads to frustration (which leads to the dark side).

In this sense, I found this TEDTalk enlightening. Philosopher Daniel Cohen, explains what exactly is the kind of argument I'm ranting about, the conceptual metaphor called "Argument as War" (more on this here). In this metaphor, the debate is perceived as a combat between points of view (represented, of course, by the debaters).

To win the debate, is to reduce the opponent to either agreeing with your point of view, or making him/her doubt himself/herself enough to give up arguing against you. The alternative, of course, is losing the debate, in which case you are forced either to change your point of view, or agree that your argumentation is just not good enough to keep discussing.

The most valid point he makes is: what do we gain, cognitively, by winning? Nothing. Except, of course, for a short ego massage. The person that actually gains something is the one that loses the argument, in the sense that he/she learns enough of the subject to change his/her mind.

My only addition to this interpretation is that we also learn things about the subject during the debate, no matter what the outcome. Whenever we confront our ideas, perspectives and points of view with another's, we have the chance of learning whatever facts or impressions they have on the subject that led to their different conclusion.

I like to think I always learn something in a good discussion, no matter if someone wins, or it ties. This is what drives me, and why I love a good debate.

Stochasticity x Determinism in elementary math

Most of the problems I'm having in studying theoretical topics nowadays stem from the fact that I've had null measure content of Statistics as a math student. I've seen interesting topics as Analysis, and Differential Geometry in undergrad, and useful stuff like Linear Algebra and Computational Linea Algebra in the masters course, but absolutely no Probability and Inference.

Nothing related to Data (not the android) at all. And this is mostly my fault. I knew before the Masters Course I wouldn't be pursuing a PhD in Math, and I knew my Math teachers wouldn't deal with topics I would most likely need in the near future (the one I'm living now).

I'm chasing the lost time, with books in Bayesian Data Analysis and Inference, but I although most of the times I understand what I read, I never seem to grok it. I will, certainly, in time, but time is a commodity a grad student doesn't have - I need Statistics now. As well as Biology, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and (why not?) a little Computer Science. So it's fair to say I'm chasing the lost time, and losing.

Prior to leaving I've seen the creation of a new undergrad course, Applied Math, in my former University; it started with concentrations in Finances, Mathematical Biology and Scientific Computing, and it soon became obvious to the faculty that some basic knowledge in Probability and Inference were a must, so it's been introduced as obligatory courses for all concentrations. My former advisor there told me he thought it was overkill at first but soon (in the first year or so) realized how suitable it was.

This is why I think it's a terrific idea (definitely worth spreading) this nice Arthur Benjamin fella presented on this talk on TED.



Obviously I don't think you should rip out everything related to Calculus (I like it, after all :) ). If you are really to grok Probability, you need a strong base in Calculus (from integrals, to maximizing Likelihood functions). But a change in paradigm is definitely well deserved. Our modern western societies are still studying according to old rules. Rules that fit well to the time and reality where they were idealized, but probably are just outdated now. We are a new society on overdrive, with a new (still changing) set of moral rules, new problems and challenges, new perspectives, new age limits. Why stick with the 19th century education philosophies? At least let's realize it's about time to discuss if it's worth changing it. See also another TED talk on this subject.

This all also brings an old question I've always had: is it a good thing that education curricula should be centralized? It's good to know beforehand what people must (might? should?) have learned looking at their curriculum. I'ts useful for the teacher/professor to know what to expect the student to know, and this also applies to the student. I've been bitten before, when the pre-requisites for a course weren't clear. I also have first hand experience of how good and dynamic an improvised class can be, when given by a motivated (and skilled) professor. OTOH, I also have firsthand experience in improvised classes that sucked.

Which is the lesser evil?

RFC: New paradigm for Ubuntu release cycle

Would it be possible to break Ubuntu into two independent sections: 'Interface' and 'Infrastructure'?

Think about Interface, as everything the ordinary user 'wants' to be updated in the 6 month cycle (GUI, apps, kernel, etc), and Infrastructure as everything else that keeps the engines running, i.e., glibc, and the like.

I think it would be nice if Ubuntu could make 6 month releases be binary compatible with each other, and in order to do that, you must compile everything with the same library versions. I can see why we might want a newer kernel every now and then, but why do we really need to to upgrade glibc every 6 months? Do the applications really need all the new features all the time? Can there be a separation of some sort so that some packages be upgraded, and others preserved? I think it would benefit all, since using the same packages for two or three (or so) releases would decrease the support burden, security- and stability- wise.

It would also have many other side benefits: easier to backport packages, reduce storage space in mirrors, and reduce upgrade issues (since there will be less packages being upgraded). It would definitely be a plus in the corporate side, where ISVs would have a much more stable infrastructure to develop on, and much closer to the two most popular closed OS approaches.

One drawback would be that bugfixes would be harder to get propagated downstream, and longer maintenance cycles sometimes aren't easy to do, specially in open source community, where development is often a continual burst of unordered creativity. It would also not be necessarilly easy to decide where to draw the line (e.g., would poppler/cairo be interface, or infrastructure? and XUL? GTK?).

Still, I think this would be an improvement, and this post is intended to draw healthy discussions in mailing lists and ubuntu related fora.