Aaron's Network

Aaron's Blog, to blog about blogging things
I'll probably just use this as a place to dump random thoughts and Ideas for things. 

the sidebar shows all posts
 Over There 

 My most recent posts are  down below 

#025 Scale of Power

posted 1 Apr 2018, 02:41 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 1 Apr 2018, 02:48 ]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Acton

The above quote is one of the best known quotes in history. It is saying that anyone given power will slowly go mad with it, and the more power someone has, the more they will be corrupted by the urge to misuse it. It definitely makes sense anyway, the more you have the ability to control people, the more you will want to control them. I think the simple answer for why this happens is that humans are not designed to work in an advanced society. They were designed to all work together to hunt, farm and survive. The sudden evolution of society in the last few hundred years means we live in a world we were never meant to be in. A leader of a tribe would never need to be corrupt, because society was close and simple, and even if they wanted to, everyone would see what they were doing. They couldn't sneak off and bribe an official,  or secretly work with the Russians, because there was no technology to allow them to do that. And in a simple society, this would work. Everyone knew what everyone else was doing, and there was no way to be corrupted by power. 

In  today's society though, the government is separate and far above the people. No normal person knows what is happening in the government, so they can do whatever they want with little restriction. The other half of the quote is "Great men are almost always bad men". So from this rule, the more powerful someone becomes, the more likely it is that they're corrupted and secretly working for their own benefit. But there are examples of great leaders who definitely weren't corrupt and were working for the country, and that's where i think the "almost always" comes in. For example, Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United states. He is widely seen as a great leader and there weren't any real accusations of corruption during his presidency. I think the reason for that may be how hard he worked to get to where he was, the fact that he was the first black president of the USA meant that many people who were corrupt themselves stood against him. Perhaps that's what helps someone fight back against the urge to misuse power, the vision of what it would turn them into, every corrupt person who's ever stood against them, giving them the strength to overcome corruption from power. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#024 The Right Direction

posted 31 Mar 2018, 14:38 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 31 Mar 2018, 14:39 ]

"There's a simple way to tell if you're on the wrong side: nobody will ever turn back once they see the opposition."

I realised something. On most debates about a topic, a strange thing happens that always lets you easily know which side is the "right" one. It's simple: You will never see someone fighting on the right side suddenly defect to the wrong side. For example, a woman may not care about fighting for equal rights until she sees that she has unequal pay in a job, or has another experience that changes her mind. But there is no situation that could make someone go from believing they are unequal to deciding they are and that everyone should stop fighting for their rights. (Other than being surrounded and peer pressured by people already on the other side). In this situation it's obvious the right side is to fight for equality, but it seems to work in any given situation where there are 2 explicit sides to an argument.

I was thinking about why this works and I think I can see. The right side has a belief, often shaped by their own experiences. They know what they're fighting for because they've lived through it. Whether it be Teenagers from a school shooting fighting against guns, or women for abortion because they're the ones who need to go through childbirth, the right side is well aware what they want, and as long as the circumstance that causes them to fight continues to happen, they will keep fighting. The wrong side, on the other hand, doesn't have any belief to stand for. They don't have a cause. Their sole purpose and argument is to resist or reject the right side. They might have an outdated piece of writing to quote but other than that, they can't properly defend themselves with anything except hate of the right side. Simply put, there are 2 sides, the  protesters and the opposition. The protesters have a cause to fight for while the opposition simply wants to keep things the same. In the end Attack always wins over Defence, and more of the wrong side convert with no conversion the other way, so with enough time, and enough persistence, Good can prevail. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#023 Tower of Shadows

posted 31 Mar 2018, 12:33 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 31 Mar 2018, 12:33 ]

"The world is a two-sided coin, getting closer to equality with each flip."

I noticed there seems to be an interesting pattern in history. it links with #019 , because I realised that every time someone fights against something in society, that area of discrimination is then forever written as no longer generally acceptable going forward, and the extent to which the discrimination against someone else occurs is lowered. All that's then left is to wait for the generation that still believes in it to die out and the only ones left are raised on the ideas and laws that whatever the fight was for is now unacceptable. Society seems to be moving closer to total equality, as each generation destroys a glaring problem in their society to move them forward. The scale of the problems has massively died down from previous problems. While in the 1800's Generation 3 was fighting for slavery, where people were slaughtered and starved, mine is faced with fine tuning. Everyone has equal rights in theory, but there's a few things that need to be addressed, like  making sure the laws are believed in and followed.

Something that as always seems to have made this more complex is technology. The theory is that every country should eventually hit full equality, as each generation becomes more developed than the last, but communication with other nations at different speeds of development means that there is an inconsistency between what is globally accepted and what a single country has accepted. This also allows for large companies based in a country where slavery is illegal to simply use sweatshops abroad, where minimum wage laws don't properly exist. It means if you were to draw a global line on the chart, it would be lower than a country like the UK, as although all nations have decided killing people in an arena for crimes like stealing as a form of entertainment isn't acceptable, not all of them are at the same points for equal rights, so the Global line is moving significantly slower than most nations. It would be impossible to organise every country in the world to boost up to the current level that more developed countries are at, and even the UK and USA are behind countries like the Netherlands that have been equal and accepting for years. I think the only thing to do is wait and hope that nobody starts a war to tear people apart in the meantime. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#022 The Marx List

posted 28 Mar 2018, 02:44 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 28 Mar 2018, 07:59 ]

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

Maybe good and bad aren't as close to each other as I thought. Although there are definitely grey areas of morality in decisions, I think their comes a point where someone does something that shows they're 100% on the side of bad, no matter how you look at it. I've decided I'm gonna start keeping track of where I see things like this online, as well as tracking people who I believe act in the best interest of humanity. I've called it "The Marx List" after Karl Marx, a philosopher from the 19th century. The list is stored in an public Google Spreadsheet and I'm gonna set down some rules for it. 

  • The Good and Bad Columns store the name of the person, with a link to a page with info about them (Generally Wikipedia, just to clarify who they are)
  • Good is sorted into Levels, with each cause they have shown to fight for adding an extra Level. (The second sheet shows a list of all things that add a level)
  • The Bad side doesn't have levels, there's one single bar they have to cross to get on the list.
  • Both sides have a Reference Column to put in links to evidence that I believe makes them worthy of the list. (Just in case I forget or someone wants to know)
  • Like I said in the first paragraph, this list is for people who go for or against the best interest of humanity, and whose views stop or push human progression.
  • The person must have irrefutable evidence against them, I.E: Video evidence, not a second hand note of what they supposedly said, unless it's been heavily proven.
  • The Offence has to be very serious, and done by a medium that it could influence a large portion of humanity in a negative way.
  • Good does not have such restrictions, although good evidence is needed, I'l be more lenient.
  • Good also does not need a serious action, their views just need to be aligned with views from the list of levels, and they need to publicly show their support for the cause.
  • The person as a whole doesn't matter. If their actions are causing a good effect on humanity, they are seen as good. 
The List is on the Side Panel as well as being accessed from bit.ly/MarxList.

This list is only what I see, so it'll take time to grow, but I should end up with a good list of people who are against human progression, as well as noting references for people who help it.

#021 The Untangled Truth

posted 12 Mar 2018, 02:51 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 12 Mar 2018, 02:52 ]

"The truth is a line of string. It begins and ends wherever you decide to cut it.

What is truth? It's an important question since it seems to be used as a universal wager of morality, yet somehow no one seems aware of what they're measuring. According to Google's dictionary, truth is: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality". This seems to say that if something can be backed up undeniably by either a pre-existing fact or reality itself, it must be seen as true. And yet from what I can see, fact and reality are largely different types of truth. Truth according to fact isn't really the truth. The large majority of "facts" are basically a single person deciding at some point that something just is, without any reasoning, and then the whole world follows this newfound "fact" that has been created for no reason at all. For example, why are trees called trees? Why does breaking a small part off of a tree make it a branch? Why are the leaves sprouting from it called what they are? The answer is because they just are. At some point thousands of years ago someone pointed to the ground and called it land, then their friend pointed to the things sprouting from the land and called them trees. And so on till everything had a name. Then everyone started following the example of these people and after some time these names became undeniable "truth" that nobody can fault, simply because that's just how it's worked for all these years, and anyone attempting to fault what's been here for that long must just be an idiot. After all, there's no way that something has just been wrong for hundreds of years, right?

Now that all seems like just a stupid idea to try and rant about trees for a few minutes. But what if the words are suddenly replaced? What if I change them to words that do start to affect people? Instead of Tree's and branches let's talk insults, like Fat and Ugly. The reasoning is still exactly the same. The only reason people are "Fat" or "Ugly" is because a long time ago someone pointed at someone else and decided they were Ugly, and being Ugly made them bad. Then another person did the same for the word Fat, and they got others to follow their example, and being Fat and Ugly was now outlawed by society, with no proof and no reason, the same way that trees are called what they are because one day someone decided their opinion was suddenly more valid than anyone else and managed to get everyone to believe it.  Really truth from fact only exists as far as people accept it. It only remains true if someone reinforces it and tries to stop people questioning it. Because once it is questioned, it's realised how little it can really be backed up by anything other than "it just is". I think people need to stop accepting things as truth just because it's always been that way. After all, a mistake repeated a million times is still a mistake. 
Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#020 🔒Comms Active

posted 26 Feb 2018, 02:06 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 26 Feb 2018, 02:06 ]

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw

Since I'm bored, let's start encrypting posts, this first one is fairly easy, but I'll start making the coding process harder as I go along.


W🤗😠👍 ☝️😨 😉🤯 🤥☝️♍🤯😵 ☝️🤢 😠 😉👹🤖🤥😵 😉🤗🤯🤖🤯 🤥😠🤢👻☂😠👻🤯 😉😠😎🤢'👍 😠 👰😠🤖🤖☝️🤯🤖? W🤗😠👍 ☝️😨 🤯♍🤯🤖☯👹🤢🤯 😠🤖👹☂🤢😵 👍🤗🤯 😉👹🤖🤥😵 😗🤢🤯😉 😠 ☂🤢☝️♍🤯🤖😎😠🤥 🤥😠🤢👻☂😠👻🤯 😠🤢😵 😢👹☂🤥😵 😎😣🤯😠😗 👍👹 😠🤢☯👰👹😵☯ 😠🤢☯😉🤗🤯🤖🤯 😉☝️👍🤗 🤢👹 🤢🤯🤯😵 👍👹 👰🤯 👰☝️🤥☝️🤢👻☂😠🤥? I👍 😉👹☂🤥😵 😣🤖👹👰😠👰🤥☯ 😉☝️😣🤯 👹☂👍 😎👹🤑🤯 😵☝️😎😢🤖☝️🤑☝️🤢😠👍☝️👹🤢, 😎☝️🤢😢🤯 😣🤯👹😣🤥🤯 😉👹☂🤥😵 😠🤥🤥 😎😣🤯😠😗 👍🤗🤯 😎😠🤑🤯 😉😠☯, 😎👹 👍🤗🤯☯'🤖🤯 🤢👹 🤥👹🤢👻🤯🤖 🤑☂😢🤗 😵☝️😨😨🤯🤖🤯🤢👍 😨🤖👹🤑 😠🤢☯👹🤢🤯 🤯🤥😎🤯. I👍 😉👹☂🤥😵 😠🤥😎👹 😠🤥🤥👹😉 😠 🤥👹👍 👹😨 😣🤖👹👻🤖🤯😎😎 👍👹 👰🤯 🤑😠😵🤯 👰☯ 😠🤥🤥 👍🤗🤯 😣🤯👹😣🤥🤯 😉🤗👹 😢😠🤢 🤢👹😉 🤯😠😎☝️🤥☯ 😢👹🤑🤑☂🤢☝️😢😠👍🤯 😉☝️👍🤗 🤯😠😢🤗 👹👍🤗🤯🤖 😠🤢😵 😎🤗😠🤖🤯 ☝️😵🤯😠😎 😠🤢😵 😣🤖👹👖🤯😢👍😎.

I🤢 😠 😉😠☯, E🤑👹👖☝️ ☝️😎 😉👹🤖😗☝️🤢👻 😣😠🤖👍☝️😠🤥🤥☯ 🤥☝️😗🤯 👍🤗☝️😎. A🤢☯👹🤢🤯 😉🤗👹'😎 ☂😎🤯😵 😠 😣🤗👹🤢🤯 😗🤢👹😉😎 🤗👹😉 👍👹 ☂😎🤯 ☝️👍 😠🤢😵 ☝️😨 ☯👹☂'🤖🤯 😢🤥🤯♍🤯🤖 ☯👹☂ 😢😠🤢 ☂😎🤯 👍🤗🤯🤑 ☝️🤢 😎😣🤯😢☝️😨☝️😢 😢👹🤑👰☝️🤢😠👍☝️👹🤢😎 👍👹 😢👹🤢♍🤯☯ 😠 😢👹🤑😣🤥🤯x 🤑🤯😎😎😠👻🤯. Y🤯👍 🤯♍🤯🤢 E🤑👹👖☝️ 🤗😠😎 ☝️👍😎 😣🤖👹👰🤥🤯🤑😎 ☝️😨 ☯👹☂ 😉😠🤢👍🤯😵 👍👹 👍🤖☯ 👍👹 😢👹🤢♍🤯🤖👍 ☝️👍 👍👹 😠 😨☂🤥🤥 🤥😠🤢👻☂😠👻🤯. S☝️🤢😢🤯 ☝️👍😎 ☂🤢☝️♍🤯🤖😎😠🤥, 👍🤗🤯🤖🤯 😉👹☂🤥😵 🤢🤯🤯😵 👍👹 👰🤯 😠 👻☝️😠🤢👍 😢🤗😠🤖😠😢👍🤯🤖 😎🤯👍 👍👹 😠😢👍☂😠🤥🤥☯ 😠😵😠😣👍 👍👹 🤯♍🤯🤖☯ 😢☂🤥👍☂🤖🤯 😣👹😎😎☝️👰🤥🤯 (Y👹☂ 😢😠🤢 😎🤯🤯 👍🤗☝️😎 ☝️🤢 👍🤗🤯 😢☂🤖🤖🤯🤢👍 😢🤗😠🤖😠😢👍🤯🤖 😎🤯👍, 😉☝️👍🤗 S☂😎🤗☝️ 😠🤢😵 🤖☝️😢🤯 ☝️🤢 👍🤗🤯 😨☝️🤖😎👍 E🤑👹👖☝️😎 😎☝️🤢😢🤯 ☝️👍 👹🤖☝️👻☝️🤢😠👍🤯😵 ☝️🤢 A😎☝️😠, 😉🤗☝️🤥🤯 👍🤗☝️😎 ☝️😎 🤢🤯♍🤯🤖 🤖🤯😠🤥🤥☯ ☂😎🤯😵 🤯🤥😎🤯😉🤗🤯🤖🤯). I😨 👍🤗🤯 😢🤗😠🤖😠😢👍🤯🤖 😎🤯👍 👻🤖🤯😉 👍🤗😠👍 👰☝️👻, ☝️👍 😉👹☂🤥😵 👰🤯 😠🤢🤢👹☯☝️🤢👻 👍👹 😎🤯😠🤖😢🤗 😨👹🤖 😠 😎😣🤯😢☝️😨☝️😢 ☝️😢👹🤢 😉🤗🤯🤢🤯♍🤯🤖 ☯👹☂ 🤯🤢😵🤯😵 ☂😣 ☝️🤢 😠🤢 ☂🤢👹🤖👍🤗👹😵👹x 😎☝️👍☂😠👍☝️👹🤢.

M😠☯👰🤯 😠 👻👹👹😵 😉😠☯ 👍👹 👻👹 😠👰👹☂👍 ☝️👍 😉👹☂🤥😵 👰🤯 👍👹 🤗😠♍🤯 😠 😎😣🤯🤯😢🤗 👍👹 E🤑👹👖☝️ 😢👹🤢♍🤯🤖👍🤯🤖? I👍 😉👹☂🤥😵 🤑🤯😠🤢 🤯♍🤯🤖☯👹🤢🤯 😢😠🤢 😎😣🤯😠😗 👍🤗🤯☝️🤖 👹😉🤢 🤥😠🤢👻☂😠👻🤯 👍👹 😢👹🤑🤑☂🤢☝️😢😠👍🤯 😉☝️👍🤗☝️🤢 😠 😢👹☂🤢👍🤖☯, 😠🤢😵 😉🤗🤯🤢🤯♍🤯🤖 👍🤗🤯☯ 👍🤖😠♍🤯🤥 👍👹 😠 😨👹🤖🤯☝️👻🤢 😢👹☂🤢👍🤖☯, 👍🤗🤯☯ 😢😠🤢 ☂😎🤯 ☝️👍 👍👹 😢👹🤑🤑☂🤢☝️😢😠👍🤯 😉☝️👍🤗 🤥👹😢😠🤥 😣🤯👹😣🤥🤯 👍🤗🤯🤖🤯, 🤥🤯👍👍☝️🤢👻 👍🤗🤯🤑 👍😠🤥😗 😉☝️👍🤗👹☂👍 🤥🤯😠🤖🤢☝️🤢👻 😠🤢☯ 🤥😠🤢👻☂😠👻🤯. I👍 😉👹☂🤥😵 👰🤯 😠 ☂😎🤯😨☂🤥 👍👹👹🤥 😨👹🤖 😣🤯🤖😎👹🤢😠🤥 😠🤢😵 👻🤥👹👰😠🤥 ☂😎🤯. I 🤗😠♍🤯 😠 😨🤯🤯🤥☝️🤢👻 😉🤯'🤖🤯 😢🤥👹😎🤯 👍👹 🤗😠♍☝️🤢👻 😎👹🤑🤯👍🤗☝️🤢👻 🤥☝️😗🤯 👍🤗☝️😎, 👰☂👍 😉☝️👍🤗 👍🤗🤯 😢☂🤖🤖🤯🤢👍 😎👍😠👍🤯 😉🤯'🤖🤯 ☝️🤢, ☝️👍 🤑😠☯ 👰🤯 😠🤢 ☝️😎😎☂🤯 👻🤯👍👍☝️🤢👻 😣🤯👹😣🤥🤯 👍👹 👰🤯🤥☝️🤯♍🤯 👍🤗😠👍 ☝️👍'😎 😉👹🤖👍🤗 👰🤯☝️🤢👻 😠👰🤥🤯 👍👹 😢👹🤑🤑☂🤢☝️😢😠👍🤯 😉☝️👍🤗 😣🤯👹😣🤥🤯 😨🤖👹🤑 👹👍🤗🤯🤖 😢👹☂🤢👍🤖☝️🤯😎, 😠🤢😵 👍🤗🤯🤢 👰🤯☝️🤢👻 😠👰🤥🤯 👍👹 😢👹🤢♍☝️🤢😢🤯 👍🤗🤯 👹👍🤗🤯🤖 😢👹☂🤢👍🤖☝️🤯😎 👹😨 👍🤗🤯 😎😠🤑🤯 👍🤗☝️🤢👻.  A🤢☯😉😠☯, T🤗👹☂👻🤗👍 O♍🤯🤖,

- A😠🤖👹🤢

#019 Bystander

posted 19 Feb 2018, 06:46 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 19 Feb 2018, 06:54 ]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

 There's a quote that's been popular and widely spread, "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it". When I looked it up, the original quote came from a philosopher and writer who wrote the above. The Implications are interesting, it seems to suggest that history is on a linear timeline, and if you start where someone else left off, you will get the same results as the next generation in the timeline previously got.

Discrimination seems to follow a pattern with history. Generation 1 decides they don't like a group of people, and prominent figures spread this idea, whether it be the government or high profile figures/groups. Generation 2 is raised on the idea that the group of people is bad. It also seems there are always some people who question the ideas even at this early point, but they get drowned out by the ignorant masses who believe everything that is passed down to them. At Generation 3, there starts to be a fight against the ideas, since the majority of the generation that started the ideas are no longer young enough to push their ideas anymore, and Generation 2 just accepted the beliefs without knowing how to fight for it. After this, it seems to vary. Depending on the remaining strength of Generation 1 and 2, there is a social battle to end the discrimination by Generation 3 that will last for some time. After there is equality,  there is a brief period of peace until Generation 4 decides there is a new group of people who they don't like and promptly rename themselves to Generation 1 to restart the loop.

So if this seems to repeat,  I guess my generation is Generation 3, since all the racism against Islam and various other groups seems to be coming mainly from the older generations who have the power to vote and say whatever they want with no repercussions. For example, Donald Trump is clearly Generation 1, with large amounts of his voters being brought up on his ideas as Generation 2. Due to the Improvement in communication since the last cycle, other countries that have not yet restarted the cycle can now comment on his actions and try to stop Generation 1 from going further in a global, more powerful way than ever before.

It almost seems like Trump has delayed the cycle for a lot of people who would be Generation 1, since we now get an outside view which prevents us from going the same direction. It's like he's absorbed some of the hate that would be sent around by having everyone direct it at his extremist views instead. I guess hate is always going to exist until the world either runs out of groups to fight against (In which case they'll probably just revisit a very old group) or until someone finds a way to globally spread a message powerful enough to stop it, and create the first Generation 0, who spreads the message and won't go any further.
 Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron
Image result for native american discriminationImage result for discrimination in history
Image result for donald trump muslim tweets

#018 And the Future Begins.

posted 5 Feb 2018, 10:04 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 5 Feb 2018, 12:18 ]

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill 
Half a year ago I made a post about how in the future technology would make solving crimes difficult, #005 Evidence, an now recently, the news was filled with articles like this, about how face-swapping is now used to realistically put celebrities into scenes they didn't actually appear in. Now while this may be unethical, its not technically illegal (for now), but I have to ask the question of when will some genius figure out that there are far less legal things that this technology can be used for. The application used is freely available, and some people have got Hollywood quality results, mostly swapping Nicolas Cage into various different Movie Scenes (As the internet generally does when given a piece of software that could be extremely important). 

One use could be to commit a crime and video it. Then simply map some photos from the victims Facebook feed, and you have a video of the victim apparently committing a crime. You could also use this the other way like I said in #005 to prove someone was at a certain location at a time. There's quite a lot of legal implications with this, so if it turns out there are a lot of people who realise how this can be used, there would need to be some precautions and laws around something like this. 

For now,  if you look close you can probably tell if its fake. But how long till that isn't the case? How long till the human eye can no longer tell mapping issues from natural imperfections in a face? How long till someone uses this application for something more serious? When that happens, I'm gonna be the first one to say Told you so.

Anyway, Thought Over,


Image result for the guardian

AI used to face-swap Hollywood stars into pornography films

This was made by a random person with a free program:

#017 The Kings Wall

posted 29 Jan 2018, 06:39 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 29 Jan 2018, 06:41 ]

"A Wise man never knows all, Only a fool knows everything." - African Proverb
Once upon a time, there was a land with 2 kingdoms. The first kingdom was ruled by a fair king, who was known for his wisdom and intricate solutions to any problem the kingdom faced. The second kingdom was ruled by an evil and greedy tyrant, who ruled with military force, was intent on conquering the land and was hated by his people

The two kingdoms had been at war for years, with the Evil King wanting the land and power capturing the other kingdom would bring. The Evil King's efforts had been efforts had been in vain so far, and he was starting to become angry to the point he was intent on destroying the wise king. He created one last plan to use all his army to break a hole in the kingdom wall and storm in. He decided the best course of attack was to focus on damaging a small area of the wall, give them a few hours to waste resources repairing and reinforcing the hole, then attack an entirely separate area of the wall, breaking through as they struggled to repair the wrong wall.

However, the Evil King had overlooked two things. First, that his people hated him, and many of his people were leaking information to the wise king, who allowed them to move to his kingdom for the information. Second, the Evil King was not aware of secret resource stashes the wise king had stored. This meant that when the first attack came, the wise king was ready. He allowed the first attack to succeed, leaving a damaged area of the wall and giving the impression he did not have knowledge of the plan. However, in the few hours he had, he created a plan of his own. He knew he could not leave the wall broken, as the soldiers would simply break in from there instead, but he also could not anticipate where the full attack would come from. However, with his extra resources, he knew he would be able to reinforce an area of the wall strong enough so the Evil King could not break through. So he enacted his plan and waited for the attack.

The Evil King and his army approached. The defending archers started firing but they reached the wall with minimal damage to their army and saw the wall had only been lightly repaired. The Evil King was slightly thrown off by this, but assumed the Wise King had fewer resources than he had originally believed so was unable to repair the wall. He decided to alter the plan and attack the weakened wall, as it would still be the easiest point of attack. 

The trebuchets began launching rocks at the area of the wall. As it was already damaged, it didn't take long to break through, and the Evil King's army was barely weakened by the archers. They approached the hole, only to find another wall behind the outer one. The Evil King was again slightly confused but commanded his army to attack this second wall, despite this bringing his army closer to the archers. The battle went on for another hour of attempting to breach this second wall before the Evil King realised what the Wise King had done. Nowhere in the wall had been reinforced at all, except for this point behind the weakened hole. This meant that while the original plan would have worked, attempting to break through this area of the wall meant breaking through all the resources of the kingdom, a small area of 20ft thick stone. 

The Evil King knew it was far too late to change his plan now, his army had suffered too much damage and would take more if he wasted time changing the point of attack. Without any other options other than retreating, he simply told his army to carry on. This went on for many more hours, the Evil King's army slowly being decayed by the arrows of the Wise King's archers, until eventually, the Evil Kings army was too weak to continue, and despite the overwhelming force the Evil King once had, he was now alone, and was easilly captured.

There are multiple lessons that could be chosen from this story. Maybe not to charge blindly into battles, or to learn to express your strengths as weaknesses, so your enemies do not know what they are walking into your area of expertise. Maybe it could be learned how wisdom will always beat power, since a wise man can make a small amount of power do far more than a simple man with large amounts. Whatever can be taken from it, I think it's a good story, so I guess here it is. 

Anyway, Thought Over,

#016 The Uncanny Rule

posted 15 Dec 2017, 04:32 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 15 Dec 2017, 04:35 ]

"The difference between Genius and stupidity is that genius has limits" - Albert Einstein
 There is a theory that the closer something gets to human, the more familiar we are with it. However, when you get close to fully human, the things that look similar to humans but not right will seem scary until you get close enough to humans to be lifelike. This sudden drop is known as the "uncanny valley" and I guess is why horror films using puppets are scary. They're humanoid and can talk, yet aren't human enough, so hit the uncanny valley.

When I started thinking about it, I saw that this "rule" could be applied to other areas. Video games as one example, you get games like Call of duty or GTA going for super realistic graphics and complicated gameplay, then you have games like flappy bird, literally so simple, 12-year-olds are taught to make it at school. Yet both seem to reach similar levels of popularity, maybe flappy bird even being more successful. In terms of the uncanny valley, games from the early era of computers that tried 3D graphics have sort of faded out. For example, the original tomb raider game. Maybe fun at the time because it was the peak of technology. But today, it's been replaced by games that get closer to lifelike, meanwhile, games that went for simple like Pacman or dig-dug are still pretty famous.

I guess someone could technically argue the video game valley is just a repeat of the original, with lifelike graphics as good, while worse graphics aren't so good till you get to a point the games selling point isn't its graphics anyway. One example I thought up that's not based on looks is the reward for good and evil in life. For example, taking halfway down the drop to the uncanny valley as the "starting point", the graph would look like something on the right (Or below if on a phone). 

So, with this graph, I would think that if you sort of are neutral to everyone in life,  you would end up in an ok position.  People who are likeable will obviously end up in a better situation, while people who are negative about everything are likely to end up worse. However, when you go from simply being unlikeable to being evil, you start to get some success. On the diagram, it's shown by dictators, who, while evil, have lots of wealth and power.
another example is successfully robbing banks or taking hostages for ransom. Evil, but if you're good at it you would be rich. 

If you go far on the good side, you would get people like charity workers, who are so morally good that they give any wealth they may earn to others. While obviously there are many benefits to this, in terms of wealth and power, what this graph is based on, they give it all to others. There may be a few exceptions to this, for example, people like Mother Teresa are famous for what they did and are now globally recognised. Many people would say she was "Successful" at what she did, even if she wasn't technically rich. 

I guess the only answer is that if you go to the extremes of either end, you find success. But with that in mind, maybe the graph should look like the final drawing. If it looks like this, it would explain a few things, for example, that flappy bird in the first example, would probably come to the extreme area, being so simple it's popular for its simplicity, I guess the only thing that changes is the "midpoint" of the graph. 

The only question that now comes up, is what would be put in that area in the original uncanny valley?  With the scale from human to inhuman, what should be at the original end of the scale is probably a solid block of wood or something else completely simplistic and non-human. But then how do you get further from humanity than the simplest object possible. My idea would be the 4th dimension. 4D objects are popular because they somehow manage to be simpler than possible in 3D, for example, a Klein bottle, a 1 sided shape, which is able to be 1-sided because the 4th dimension allows it to pass through itself.
as it is 1 sided, it is able to be simpler than reality, and that's what i would guess would be on the left extreme of the uncanny rule, a 4d object of some kind that is far better than lifelike humanity. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron
Related image
Image result for original lara croft game
Image result for klein bottle

1-10 of 25