# A Reasonable Approximation

### Pareto improvements are rarer than they seem

this is surely not an original insight, but I haven't seen it before

A Pareto improvement is where you make one party better off and no parties worse off.

Suppose Adam has a rare baseball card. He assigns no intrinsic value to baseball cards. Adam likes Beth, and somewhat values her happiness. Beth collects baseball cards, and would happily pay $100 for Adam's card. If Adam just gives Beth his baseball card, is that a Pareto improvement? Naively, yes: he loses the card that he doesn't care about, and gains her happiness; she gains the card. Both are better off. But I claim not, because if Adam has the card, he can sell it to Beth for$100. He would much prefer doing that over just giving her the card. But if Beth has the card, he can't do that. He assigns no intrinsic value to the card, but he can still value it as a trading chip.

Now suppose Adam has the baseball card but Beth also has a copy of that card. Then Beth has less desire for Adam's card, so this situation also isn't a Pareto improvement over the original. By giving something to Beth, we've made Adam's situation worse, even though Adam likes Beth and values her happiness.

And I think situations like this are common. The ability to give someone something they want, is a form of power; and power is instrumentally useful. And the less someone wants, the less able you are to give them something they want1.

For a closer-to-reality example, the reddit comment that sparked this post said:

bringing Platform 3 back into use at Liverpool Street Underground Station was denied because the platform would not be accessible. Neither of the platforms currently in use for that line is accessible, so allowing Platform 3 to be used would be a Pareto improvement

The model here is that there are two parties, people who can access the platforms at Liverpool St and those who can't. If Platform 3 is brought back into use, the first group gains something and the second group loses nothing.

But I think that if Platform 3 is brought back into use, the second group loses some power. They lose the power to say "we'll let you bring back Platform 3 if you give us…". Maybe Platform 3 can be made accessible for $1 million. Then they can say "we'll let you bring it back if you make it accessible", but they can't do that if it's already back in use. And they lose some power to say "if you ignore us, we'll make things difficult for you". Maybe it would take \$1 trillion to make Platform 3 accessible. If Platform 3 remains out of use, people are more likely to spend \$1 million to make their building projects accessible, because they've seen what happens if they don't. Conversely, if Platform 3 comes back, people are more likely to exaggerate future costs of accessibility. "If I say it costs \$1 million, I'll have to pay. If I say it costs \$10 million, maybe I won't." I haven't researched the situation in question, and I expect that the actual power dynamics in play don't look quite like that. But I think the point stands. (My original reply said: "If it's easier to turn an unused inaccessible platform into a used accessible platform, than to turn a used inaccessible platform into a used accessible platform - I don't know if that's the case, but it sounds plausible - then opening the platform isn't a Pareto improvement." That still seems true to me, but it's not what I'm talking about here. There are lots of reasons why something might not be a Pareto improvement.) This doesn't mean Pareto improvements don't exist. But I think a lot of things that look like them are not. Update 2018-02-02: some good comments on reddit and LessWrong. Following those, I have two things in particular to add. First, that I like /u/AntiTwister's summary: "If you have the power to prevent another party from gaining utility, then you lose utility by giving up that power even if you are allies. There is opportunity cost in abstaining from using your power as a bargaining chip to increase your own utility." Second, that there is a related (weaker) concept called Kaldor-Hicks efficiency. I think that a lot of the things that look-like-but-aren't Pareto improvements, are still Kaldor-Hicks improvements - meaning that the utility lost by the losing parties is still less than the utility gained by the winners. In theory, that means that the winners could compensate the losers by giving them some money, to reach a Pareto improvement over the original state. But various political and practical issues can (and often do) get in the way of that. 1. This feels like it generalizes far beyond questions of Pareto efficiency, but I'm not sure how to frame it. Something like game theory is more competitive than it appears. Even when no two players value the same resource, even when all players genuinely want all other players to do well, players still have an incentive to sabotage each other. Posted on 27 January 2018 | Comments ### Improving goimports Epistemic status: Pure dilettantism. I have never used Go. This might make me unqualified to say what I'm about to say. But it's okay, because I use the word "seems" a lot. In Go, if you have an unused import, your program fails to compile. This has made a lot of people mildly annoyed and been sometimes regarded as a bad idea, but not universally. The devs decline to add a compiler flag to change this behaviour, "because compiler options should not affect the semantics of the language and because the Go compiler does not report warnings, only errors that prevent compilation". This strikes me as reasonable, if not the decision I personally would make. Instead, they suggest this pattern: import "unused" // This declaration marks the import as used by referencing an // item from the package. var _ = unused.Item // TODO: Delete before committing! - that is, add a line of code to trick the compiler into thinking that you're using the import, even though you're not. (Unless you forget to delete the trick line, which the compiler won't verify for you.) This does not strike me as a very good substitute. With a compiler flag, I could turn it on while debugging and turn it off for production to make sure I had no unused imports. I could use a commit hook to keep unused imports out of the repository. By tricking the compiler, there's no particularly easy way to do this. (I suppose I could put the string "FAKEIMPORT" is a comment on those lines, and grep for that string. This is still not a great solution.) I also refer to the devs' opinion that "if it's worth complaining about, it's worth fixing in the code. (And if it's not worth fixing, it's not worth mentioning.)" I claim that there's no fundamental difference between import unused and import unused var _ = unused.Item Neither affects the semantics of the program, if we ignore that the first one doesn't compile1. If one is worth complaining about, so is the other. But the devs are sending mixed signals. It seems the first is worth complaining about, because the compiler complains. But it seems the second is not, because the devs recommend it. This should be a sign that something about this whole situation is less than ideal2. (For myself, I would say that both are worth complaining about in production, and neither is worth complaining about when debugging. But the trick works equally well in both instances.) There is another solution, in the form of a tool called goimports. The idea is that you don't write imports at all. If you have a symbol that isn't imported, it searches your filesystem for an appropriate package and adds an import line. If you have an unused import, it deletes it. But word on the street is that some names are ambiguous, supplied by multiple packages, and goimports has no way to choose which one you mean. So if you comment out a line, and then uncomment it, goimports might add back a different import than the one you originally used. This, too, seems less than ideal. All of which is to say: although I don't use Go, it seems to me that Go has a problem, and that the existing solutions aren't perfect. I propose a new solution, which could be implemented as two new modes for goimports to run in or as one or two completely new tools. In the first mode, this tool acts like goimports, but more conservatively. Instead of removing unused imports, it merely comments them out. And instead of searching your filesystem for packages, it merely searches your comment lines, and uncomments them if there's a match. So if you're debugging, and comment out the only use of a package, this tool will comment out the import for you. When you uncomment that use, the import will be added back in, but without the ambiguous naming problem. At no point do you have to trick the compiler, so you don't have to remember to stop tricking the compiler. In the second mode, this tool checks for commented out import lines, and tells you whether it found any (or optionally deletes them). It can be called in commit hooks, to prevent such lines from cluttering up a repository. This seems to me like it would be an improvement on the status quo. 1. At least, they don't look like they do. Not knowing Go, it's conceivable that they could. If the second can have effects, then the devs' recommendation seems particularly bad. In that case, if a var _ = unused.Item line shows up in a codebase, it's probably a mistake - but you can't be sure without checking, which takes much longer. 2. I want to clarify three things. First, I do not think the devs are wrong to recommend using this trick. Second, I do not think the second version is just as bad as the first. The second version has a more obvious smell, which is valuable, because bad code that smells bad is less bad than bad code that smells good. Third, I said the situation is less than ideal, and that's what I meant. I do not think the situation is terrible. Posted on 13 January 2017 | Comments ### The Parable of the Clock The monk Dawa had a clock that had stopped, and he was content. When he wished to know the hour, he would glance at the clock, and discover that it was noon. One day a visiting friend commented on the clock. "Why does your clock say that the hour is noon, when I am quite sure that it is six in the evening?" Dawa found this unlikely, for the hour had always been noon in his experience. But he had been instilled with the virtues of curiosity and empiricism. If the hour is noon, I desire to believe it is noon. If the hour is six in the evening, I desire to believe it is six in the evening. Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want. Thus fortified, he sought out other clocks. The time was indeed six in the evening. In accordance with the virtue of relinquishment, and gently laughing inside at his past foolishness, Dawa serenely set his broken clock forwards by six hours. Posted on 22 December 2016 | Comments ### Data surgery is not rocket science This is a story of me failing to do something, and some thoughts on how I might have succeeded. A friend had a problem. He'd been recording some audio on his phone when the battery died, leaving him with a .m4a file that couldn't be played. He had a look at the contents and it contained a bunch of data, so he offered$40 if someone could recover the audio for him.

This seemed like a fun challenge that would exercise skills there isn't much call for. I didn't necessarily expect to succeed, but I decided to give it a go. (I only remember doing something like this once before, when I had a corrupt FAT partition that I managed to fix with some bit-flipping.)

To help, the friend provided two small files from the same app: one a successful recording, and one corrupt like the target file.

The simplest thing was to simply try playing the broken files with mplayer, just in case. It didn't work, and gave an error message saying (among other things) "moov atom not found".

The next thing was to look at all the files in a hex editor, which in this case was "hexdump -C piped into less" because I don't think I have a dedicated hex editor installed. I quickly noticed that the good recording had the bytes moov at location 0x1d, while the corrupt recordings both had the bytes free there.

I also noticed that all three files had the bytes mdat at location 0xc95, followed by some low-entropy data, and then some apparently high-entropy data that seemed to go on to the end of the file. I guessed that this was the actual audio data, while the start of the good recording was a valid audio header.

00000000  00 00 00 18 66 74 79 70  6d 70 34 32 00 00 00 00  |....ftypmp42....|
00000010  69 73 6f 6d 6d 70 34 32  00 00 0c 79 66 72 65 65  |isommp42...yfree|
00000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  |................|
*
00000c90  00 3f 3f 3f 3f 6d 64 61  74 01 40 22 80 a3 7f f8  |.????mdat.@"....|
00000ca0  85 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d  2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d  |.---------------|
00000cb0  2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d  2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d  |----------------|
*
00000da0  2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d  2d 2d 2d 2d 2e ff f1 0a  |------------....|
00000db0  5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a  5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a  |ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ|
*
00000eb0  5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a  5a 5a 5a 5d e0 e2 14 b4  |ZZZZZZZZZZZ]....|
00000ec0  b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4  b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4  |................|
00000ed0  b4 b4 bc 00 e2 36 2e 70  5b 0c 09 88 8b b1 2a ae  |.....6.p[.....*.|
00000ee0  9d 55 6c 14 4c 2a 2a 55  45 44 01 c5 35 93 14 a0  |.Ul.L**UED..5...|

The start of the target file. hexdump prints a * to indicate that several lines have been skipped which were identical to the one above. The audio data seems to start around position 0xed2.

So that gave me another simple thing to try. I took the first 0xc95 bytes from the good file, and byte 0xc95 onwards from the small corrupt file, and concatenated them.

head -c 3221 tinytest_notbroken.m4a > fixtest-1.m4a
tail -c +3222 tinytest_broken.m4a >> fixtest-1.m4a

After this, fixtest-1.m4a played in mplayer. It printed lots of warning messages while it did so, but whatever.

So I did the same thing with the target file, and recovered two seconds of the original audio. I could report to my friend that it started with him saying "um".

This is what I was expecting, since the good recording was only two seconds, and it would presumably have had the length in the header. But now I needed to work out how to lengthen it.

I played around with ffmpeg, but it didn't seem to have an option for "ignore the audio duration stated in the header", so it seemed I would have to fix the header myself.

ftyppm42 seemed like it might be a file type indicator, so I googled that. A few clicks led to the MP4 registration authority, which suggested that the relevant standard was called "ISO/IEC 14496-14". So I then googled "ISO/IEC 14496-14 track header", and found a pdf of the relevant standard. Unfortunately this is a high-context document, I didn't particularly understand it, and it didn't help me very much.

I also found wikipedia on MP4, which pointed me to ISO base media file format, ISO/IEC 14496-12. Google then gave me a pdf of that standard, which was much more detailed, helpful, and lengthy.

I didn't attempt to understand it all. But I searched for "mdat", and shortly after one of the hits, I found the following description of a data structure:

aligned(8) class MovieHeaderBox extends FullBox(‘mvhd’, version, 0) {
if (version==1) {
unsigned int(64) creation_time;
unsigned int(64) modification_time;
unsigned int(32) timescale;
unsigned int(64) duration;
} else { // version==0
unsigned int(32) creation_time;
unsigned int(32) modification_time;
unsigned int(32) timescale;
unsigned int(32) duration;
}
template int(32) rate = 0x00010000; // typically 1.0
template int(16) volume = 0x0100; // typically, full volume
const bit(16) reserved = 0;
const unsigned int(32)[2] reserved = 0;
template int(32)[9] matrix =
{ 0x00010000,0,0,0,0x00010000,0,0,0,0x40000000 };
// Unity matrix
bit(32)[6] pre_defined = 0;
unsigned int(32) next_track_ID;
}

Promising! My header contained the following two lines:

00000020  00 00 00 6c 6d 76 68 64  00 00 00 00 d4 6b 4f 0d  |...lmvhd.....kO.|
00000030  d4 6b 4f 0d 00 00 03 e8  00 00 08 17 00 01 00 00  |.kO.............|

That's mvhd from the description, followed by four null bytes, followed by two identical 32-bit ints - the creation and modification times would naturally have been the same - and then two more ints.

timescale was 0x3e8, decimal 1000, which per spec means 1000 time units pass in a second. duration was 0x817, decimal 2071, indicating a track 2.071 seconds long. So presumably I need to edit this value.

What to set it to? As long as it's sufficiently long, it's not important. So I set it to 0x10000817, using emacs (in hexl-mode) as my editor, and tried again. No dice, it still cut off at two seconds.

So I searched "duration" in the same file, and found two more places to edit. One soon after the bytes tkhd, which used the same timescale as the mvhd; and one soon after the bytes mdhd, which had its own timescale. In this case the timescale was 0xac44, decimal 44100.

But adding 0x1000000 to both of these durations didn't help either.

(After one of these three edits - I don't remember which - mplayer started reporting the file as being 74 hours long. But it still cut out after two seconds.)

At this point I was up late and out of ideas. But I realized that I could just ask my friend to record another long track, and then use the header from that to do the job. So I left him instructions, plus some notes on where I'd got to, so someone else could pick up where I'd left off if that didn't work.

Then while I was asleep, someone else came along and fixed it for him before he tried that. I don't know how.

But here are some thoughts on how I might have proceeded, if my friend hadn't been able to record the longer audio.

For one thing, I might have been able to generate my own long file in ffmpeg. But attempting this now, I can't make it work. I concatenate several copies of the good recording, and get a file that starts with these three lines:

00000000  00 00 00 18 66 74 79 70  4d 34 41 20 00 00 02 00  |....ftypM4A ....|
00000010  69 73 6f 6d 69 73 6f 32  00 00 00 08 66 72 65 65  |isomiso2....free|
00000020  00 07 93 5e 6d 64 61 74  01 40 22 80 a3 7f f8 85  |...^mdat.@".....|

It plays fine. But when I try to mix it with the target file, it doesn't play. It complains about the missing moov atom, even though that's also missing in the working concatenated file. I'm not sure what's wrong.

Failing that, I could have recorded the long file myself in the same app my friend used, to spare his attention for things he actually wanted to be doing. (Which, after all, was the reason he was willing to pay someone else to fix the file.) I could also, for curiousity's sake, have recorded another short file, and attempted to find more durations by comparing the headers.

But perhaps the simplest thing would have been to take a completely different approach from the beginning. It turns out that other people have encountered this problem before, and paved the way for those like me. For example, someone on facebook posted this page, which teaches you to fix these files using a piece of software called "faad.exe". More research reveals that this is open source, and even available in portage.

(I also find references to FAAD if I google "fix corrupt m4a file".)

It looks like this was a case of "more haste, less speed". At least the haste was fun, but probably not worth the 40 I might have earned by being thorough. Posted on 17 December 2016 | Comments ### The Sally-Anne Fallacy I'd like to coin a term. The Sally-Anne fallacy is the mistake of assuming that somone believes something, simply because that thing is true.1 The name comes from the Sally-Anne test, used in developmental psychology to detect theory of mind. Someone who lacks theory of mind will fail the Sally-Anne test, thinking that Sally knows where the marble is. The Sally-Anne fallacy is also a failure of theory of mind. In internet arguments, this will often come up as part of a chain of reasoning, such as: you think X; X implies Y; therefore you think Y. Or: you support X; X leads to Y; therefore you support Y.2 So for example, we have this complaint about the words "African dialect" used in Age of Ultron. The argument goes: a dialect is a variation on a language, therefore Marvel thinks "African" is a language. You think "African" has dialects; "has dialects" implies "is a language"; therefore you think "African" is a language. Or maybe Marvel just doesn't know what a "dialect" is. This is also a mistake I was pointing at in Fascists and Rakes. You think it's okay to eat tic-tacs; tic-tacs are sentient; therefore you think it's okay to eat sentient things. Versus: you think I should be forbidden from eating tic-tacs; tic-tacs are nonsentient; therefore you think I should be forbidden from eating nonsentient things. No, in both cases the defendant is just wrong about whether tic-tacs are sentient. Many political conflicts include arguments that look like this. You fight our cause; our cause is the cause of [good thing]; therefore you oppose [good thing]. Sometimes people disagree about what's good, but sometimes they just disagree about how to get there, and think that a cause is harmful to its stated goals. Thus, liberals and libertarians symmetrically accuse each other of not caring about the poor.3 If you want to convince someone to change their mind, it's important to know what they're wrong about. The Sally-Anne fallacy causes us to mistarget our counterarguments, and to mistake potential allies for inevitable enemies. 1. From the outside, this looks like "simply because you believe that thing". 2. Another possible misunderstanding here, is if you agree that X leads to Y and Y is bad, but still think X is worth it. 3. Of course, sometimes people will pretend not to believe the obvious truth so that they can further their dastardly ends. But sometimes they're just wrong. And sometimes they'll be right, and the obvious truth will be untrue. Posted on 09 April 2016 | Comments ### Political Polarization in the US House of Representatives I've created an interactive graph of historical levels of political polarization in the US House of Representatives. It would be tricky to embed in this blog, so I'm only linking it. Summary: The x-axis on this graph is based on DW-NOMINATE left-right scores of each member of each U.S. House of Representatives from 1865 to 2015. This uses a member's voting record to measure the direction and extremity of their political views, regardless of party affiliation. If a member's score on this axis is known, it's possible to predict their vote on any given issue with high confidence, given no other information about the member. Members whose votes are typically left-aligned receive negative scores, while members whose votes are typically right-aligned receive positive scores. (However, see The Thin Blue Line That Stays Strangely Horizontal, which questions the validity of DW-NOMINATE.) Background: I made this last year for a Udacity course, "Data Visualization and D3.js". I needed to submit a visualization for marking, and this was my submission. I'm grateful for feedback provided by Udacity and by some of my friends. Without that, the result would certainly have been worse. The source is available on GitHub, including datasets and some python scripts I used to process them. The README also documents some of the design history. I'm aware of one bug: in firefox (38.6.1 on linux), the legend appears to display the 5-95 and 25-75 percentile boxes identically. They're implemented as rects with fill-opacity: 0.3: the 25-75 boxes have two of these rects on top of each other. This is also how the paths on the graph itself are colored. I assume there are other bugs. Posted on 26 February 2016 | Comments ### Officially faceblind I realized a few years ago that I was at least somewhat faceblind/prosopagnosic. A while back I took an online test out of curiousity, and scored low. They said that if I was in London and interested in further tests, I should leave my email address. A few days ago I went in for those tests, and now I have a PhD student (Katie) also telling me I'm faceblind. Which makes it official, I guess. Next she wants to run EEGs on me, which should be cool. That will help work out where my brain is going wrong, in the long chain between "photons stimulate nerve endings in my eyeballs" and "I recognize a face" (whatever that means). Also, apparently there's a phenomon which sounds to me like blindsight, where some prosopagnosics' brains are clearly reacting to faces on some level that doesn't reach their consciousness. She wants to learn more about that too. What follows is discussion of the tests, my scores, and what they mean. I've been given a powerpoint with my scores reported as percentiles, along with absolute scores and average control scores. 2% or lower is counted as "impaired". Percentiles are only given as integers, or as "<1%". On the day, Katie also gave me some numbers in terms of standard deviations (σ). Under a normal distribution, 2.5% would be approximately -2σ, but I'm not sure any of these results will be normally distributed, so I don't know if σ scores really tell me anything. A note: if you think you might be faceblind, and you'd be interested in getting more detailed tests, it might be a good idea not to read the below. I expect it wouldn't significantly bias the results if you did, except for one bit that I've rot13ed. But I don't trust myself to make that call. If you're in London, you can take the above test like me and see what happens. Otherwise I'm not sure how you'd go about getting more tests. The object/face recognition tests were "memorise these things, then we show you a sequence of things and you have to say if each of these things was a thing in the first set". The things were houses, cars, horses, and bald women's faces. I was bad at all of these: 4% for cars, 2% for houses, and <1% for horses and women. (Average score was higher for women than horses, and my score was higher for horses than women, so I'm worse at women than horses. I think Katie told me I was somewhere between -5σ and -6σ for women. Under normality, -5σ is one in thirty million, but this is clearly not normal.) So it seems I have some level of general object agnosia, but more specific prosopagnosia on top of that. I was 11% for reading emotions from eyes, which is a point for Team Phil Does Not Have Aspergers (some of my friends are divided about that). In fact, the average score is 26 and I scored 23, and there were a few cases where I said an answer, then thought "wait no it's this" and didn't say anything because I wasn't sure if I should. (I was speaking my answer and Katie was recording it. I had to choose from four emotions, so I'm not sure why this wasn't recorded by a computer like most of the other tests.) So plausibly I'm actually above 11%. I was <1% at famous face recognition, recognising five out of fifty that I'd been exposed to, out of sixty in total. (I got Jvyy Fzvgu, Uneevfba Sbeq, Dhrra Ryvmnorgu, Ebova Jvyyvnzf, and surprisingly Ovyy Pyvagba.) It seems that controls tend to get above 40, so even counting that "exposed to" is vague, I did really badly at this. I think Katie said I was -9σ, which would be one in 10^19 under normality. I'm <1% at the Cambridge Memory Test for Faces, which is the one I linked above. I actually scored worse in the lab than online. (47% versus 58%, IIRC, with a control average of 80%, and 60% indicating impairment. But the lab score I've been given is 34 against control of 58, so it's clearly been adjusted.) There could be any number of reasons for this, including "chance". But when I took it online, I often thought that one of the faces looked a little like Matt Damon, and chose that one. I like to think that "mistaking people for Matt Damon" is the way forward in face recognition. I was somewhat okay at half of the Cambridge Face Perception Test. In this one, they showed me a face at an angle, and below it the same face face-on, six times, with varying degrees of modification. I had to order them according to how similar each was to the original face, within a minute. For half the tests, the faces were all upside down. For all of the tests, they all looked incredibly similar and my instinctive reaction was WTF. On the upright test, I got <1%. On the inverted test, I got 7%. One strategy I used a few times was to focus on the lips, specifically on the size of the dip in the bow. I just ordered them according to that. I guess it helps, but I found it a lot easier for inverted faces. Doing better at inverted would seem to suggest that I'm doing some kind of holistic face processing that goes wrong and blocks off later avenues for perception. Buuut, objectively I scored worse on the inverted faces, just not as much worse as average, so I'm not sure if this does suggest that. (And I'm not sure it is "objectively" - if all the faces had been assigned to the other condition, would my scores have changed?) Hypothetically, high scores on both tests could indicate my problem is with memory, not initial perception. The low score here doesn't mean I don't have a problem with memory, but it does seem to hint that I do have a problem with initial perception. And I suspect the famous faces test points at me also having a memory problem. Posted on 19 January 2016 | Comments ### A Scream of Swifties Inspired by Slate Star Codex Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: it's one way to learn about frogs. If you want me to explain any of these, ask, and I will explain without making fun of you. "I hear someone playing a triangle in the corridor," said Tom haltingly. "We've got to overturn every last insect in this garden," said Tom flippantly. "Goose feathers are annoyingly fragile," said Tom, breaking down. "Anastasia gives me pins and needles," said Christian gratingly. "I miss my submissive," René opined. "I didn't do it, and nor did any of my siblings," Tom insisted. "It's not much paint, it won't hurt to run your tongue up it," said Tom metallically. "I'm so sick, even my flu has the flu," said Tom metallurgically. "It's pitch black and I can hear a monster doing arithmetic," said Tom gruesomely. "Man City don't hold a candle to the real heros of Manchester," said Tom manually. "I just bought Manchester United," said Tom virtuously. "Lancelot told me I was his favourite!" said Tom, surprised. "I don't think this tube of semen is entirely straight," said the incumbent. "I can fit inside my GameCube!" said Tom inconsolably. "In a former life, I was a priest in pre-Columbian Peru," said Tom inconsolably. "I need a name for my squid-and-flatfish restaurant," said Tom inconsolably. "I make a living as the red tellytubby," said Tom, apropos. "I'm doing crunches so I can get a six-pack," said Treebeard absently. "I'm half-fish and made of lithium," said Treebeard limerently. "Figure three plots counts of close-ups on male versus female genitals," said Tom pornographically. "My breasts don't have enough room in this corset," said Victoria, double depressed. "Bring me the head of my enemy," said Emacs vicariously. "I have affirming the consequent, base rate neglect, and now also ad hominem," said Tom, getting cocky. "We lost the treaty, so we had to ratify it again," said Tom, resigned. "I'm in the group supporting Shiva's wife," said Tom with satisfaction. Posted on 01 January 2016 | Comments ### Unix pro tip: Print and pipe Sometimes you (or at least, I) want to run a command for its output, but also want to pipe it through another command. For example, see the results of a find but also count how many hits it got. I've sometimes lamented that there's no easy way to do this. But the other day I had a flash of insight and figured out how: find . | tee /dev/stderr | wc -l proc1 | tee /dev/stderr | proc2 # general case (I'm pretty proud of this. I don't know if it's original to me, but I discovered it independently even if not.) tee will print the output of proc1 to both stdout and stderr. stderr goes to the terminal and stdout goes to proc2. You can make it more convenient with an alias: alias terr='tee /dev/stderr | ' find . | terr wc -l (Putting a pipe in an alias seems to work in both zsh and bash.) If you want to concatenate the streams, to pipe them to another process, you can use subshells: proc1 | ( terr proc2 ) 2>&1 | proc3 but note that stderr output from proc2 will also get sent to proc3, unless you send it somewhere else. I haven't yet thought of a use for this. There are potential issues with buffering here. I'm not aware that tee makes any promises1 about which order it writes the streams in. It's going to be interlacing them while it writes, so that it doesn't need to keep a whole copy in memory. So (if the input is large enough) proc2 will be receiving input before it's finished being written to stderr, and might start writing output, and then the output streams can get interlaced. For some values of proc2, commands which start printing before they've finished reading, this is inevitable. But I think useful proc2s are likely to be aggregators2 - by which I mean, commands which can't do anything until they've finished reading all their input3. In my tests so far, those have been safe, but that doesn't prove much. We can do a more reliable check with strace: find . | strace tee /dev/stderr | wc -l By the looks of things, tee will read into a buffer, then write it to stdout (the pipe), then write it to the specified target (stderr, which goes to the terminal), and repeat to exhaustion. But the important thing is, it doesn't close any file descriptors until it's finished writing everything, and then it closes the target before it closes stdout. If this is consistent amongst tee implementations - and it seems sensible4 - then aggregators almost definitely won't interlace their output with the output from proc1. I don't want to say "definitely", because there might be other stuff going on that I haven't accounted for. But at any rate, tee will finish writing before the aggregator starts. Anyway, I see this as being the sort of thing that you're likely use manually, not in an automated process. So if the output does get interlaced a little, it's probably not that big a deal. 1. Note how I didn't say guaranTEEs? You're welcome. 2. In fact, wc is the only proc2 I can currently think of, that I expect to be regularly useful. (And then just piping through cat -n does something similar, but it's not ideal.) numsum or perhaps some other tools from num-utils could conceivably be handy from time to time. 3. You can turn a non-aggregator into an aggregator with moreutils' sponge command, which is like cat but reads all its input before writing anything. 4. They could reasonably close their outputs in either order, which might make a difference. But I don't think it's usual for programs to explicitly close their std* streams, that gets taken care of by the surrounding infrastructure. So if tee explicitly closes its target, I'd expect that to happen before stdout gets closed. Posted on 07 October 2015 | Comments ### London Cycle Hires and Weather Preface: I wrote this report for Udacity's "Explore and Summarize Data" module. The structure is kind of strange for a blog post, but I'm submitting the finished report essentially unchanged. One thing I will note. I find that the cycle hire usage doesn't change much throughout the year. Shortly after submitting, I read this article which finds that it does vary quite a lot. I'm inclined to trust that result more. It's intuitively sensible, and it looks directly at the number of rides taken, instead of looking at a proxy like I do. Take this as evidence for how much to trust my other results. My goal is to investigate usage of the London cycle hire scheme, and in particular how it varies with the weather. I'm running an analysis from July 2013 to June 2014. I'm using two data sets here. Daily weather data comes from Weather Underground, using the weather station at London Heathrow airport. (London City Airport is closer to the bike stations that I use, but the data from that airport reports 0 precipitation on every single day. The data from Heathrow seems to be more complete, and I expect it to be almost as relevant.) I collected the cycle hire data myself, over the course of the year, by downloading CSV files from an unofficial API which now appears to be defunct. It has a granularity of about ten minutes. That's about 50,000 entries per docking station for the year, so for this analysis, I'm only using the data from four docking stations near my office. All data and source code used for this project can be found in the git repository. ## Exploring the weather data #### Temperature These variables measure the minimum, average, and maximum daily temperatures. The graphs all look similar, and overlap a lot. The shape is a little surprising, as I didn't expect the density graphs to be bimodal. It could potentially be caused by significant differences between summer and winter, with an abrupt shift between the two. #### Rainfall According to the rain column, There are over 225 rainy days and only about 125 non-rainy days. But by far the most common bin for precip.mm is the leftmost one. Table of values of precip.mm: ## ## 0 0.25 0.51 0.76 1.02 2.03 3.05 4.06 5.08 6.1 7.11 7.87 ## 207 35 20 9 17 22 12 8 12 4 4 2 ## 8.89 9.91 10.92 11.94 13.97 ## 3 5 2 1 2 Although more than half of observations have rain == TRUE, more than half of them also have precip.mm == 0, which needs more investigation. Rainfall as measured by precip.mm versus as measured by rain: The two measures don't always agree. Sometimes rain is false but precip.mm is nonzero; and often rain is true but precip.mm is zero. Neither of those is surprising individually: if rain is only counted when the rainfall exceeds a certain threshold, then that threshold could be large (giving false/nonzero) or small (giving true/zero). But the combination suggests that that isn't what's going on, and I don't know what is. This table counts the anomalies by turning precip.mm into a boolean zero/nonzero (false/true) and comparing it to rain: ## ## FALSE TRUE ## FALSE 119 9 ## TRUE 88 149 There are 88 instances of true/zero, 9 instances of false/nonzero, but the cases where they agree are the most common. I find precip.mm to me more plausible here. I feel like fewer than half of days are rainy. This website agrees with me, saying that on average, 164 days out of the year are rainy (rain - 237, precip.mm - 158). #### Wind These three measures of wind speed are all averages. wind is simply the average wind speed over a day. wind.max is the daily maximum of the average wind speed over a short time period (I think one minute). gust is the same thing, but with a shorter time period (I think 14 seconds). Unlike with temperature, the three measures look different. All are right-skewed, although gust looks less so. There are several outliers (the isolated points on the box plots), and the quartiles don't overlap. The minimum gust speed (about 24) is almost as high as the median wind.max. ## Exploring the bike data #### Time between updates There are a few outliers here. Not all the lines are visible due to rendering artifacts, but above 5000, we only have five entries: ## name prev.updated updated ## 46779 Earnshaw Street 2013-10-03 08:50:23 2013-10-13 09:20:28 ## 46899 Southampton Place 2013-10-03 08:50:22 2013-10-13 09:20:27 ## 46918 High Holborn 2013-10-03 08:50:24 2013-10-13 09:20:30 ## 47049 Bury Place 2013-10-03 08:50:26 2013-10-13 09:20:32 ## 175705 Southampton Place 2014-06-20 17:36:06 2014-06-30 08:30:03 The first four of these happened when my collection script broke and I failed to realize it. The other occurred when Southampton Place was taken out of service temporarily. Let's zoom in on the lower ones: There are several instances where the time between updates is unusually large, on the order of hours or days. The times of entries with between 2000 and 5000 minutes between updates: ## name prev.updated updated ## 32650 High Holborn 2013-08-31 15:10:07 2013-09-02 12:30:05 ## 32660 Bury Place 2013-08-31 15:10:08 2013-09-02 12:30:07 ## 32672 Southampton Place 2013-08-31 15:10:05 2013-09-02 12:30:04 ## 32674 Earnshaw Street 2013-08-31 15:10:06 2013-09-02 12:30:05 ## 38546 High Holborn 2013-09-14 22:39:00 2013-09-16 08:24:22 ## 38719 Bury Place 2013-09-14 22:39:02 2013-09-16 08:24:23 ## 38734 Southampton Place 2013-09-14 22:38:58 2013-09-16 08:24:20 ## 38735 Earnshaw Street 2013-09-14 22:38:59 2013-09-16 08:24:21 ## 84066 Bury Place 2013-12-27 15:40:08 2013-12-29 23:10:14 ## 84069 High Holborn 2013-12-27 15:40:06 2013-12-29 23:10:13 ## 84073 Southampton Place 2013-12-27 15:40:05 2013-12-29 23:10:11 ## 84078 Earnshaw Street 2013-12-27 15:40:05 2013-12-29 23:10:12 ## 84186 Earnshaw Street 2013-12-30 00:10:05 2013-12-31 13:10:07 ## 84202 High Holborn 2013-12-30 00:10:06 2013-12-31 13:10:09 ## 84269 Southampton Place 2013-12-30 00:10:05 2013-12-31 13:10:06 ## 84330 Bury Place 2013-12-30 00:10:07 2013-12-31 13:10:11 ## 89443 Southampton Place 2014-01-12 20:20:10 2014-01-14 18:40:07 ## 89459 High Holborn 2014-01-12 20:20:13 2014-01-14 18:40:11 ## 89467 Bury Place 2014-01-12 20:20:14 2014-01-14 18:40:16 ## 89524 Earnshaw Street 2014-01-12 20:20:11 2014-01-14 18:40:09 ## 121381 Earnshaw Street 2014-03-15 14:50:06 2014-03-17 01:50:04 ## 121398 High Holborn 2014-03-15 14:50:07 2014-03-17 01:50:05 ## 121444 Bury Place 2014-03-15 14:50:10 2014-03-17 01:50:07 ## 121591 Southampton Place 2014-03-15 14:50:05 2014-03-17 01:50:04 ## 133765 High Holborn 2014-04-11 16:59:37 2014-04-14 01:29:07 ## 133900 Earnshaw Street 2014-04-11 16:59:36 2014-04-14 01:29:05 ## 133961 Bury Place 2014-04-11 16:59:38 2014-04-14 01:29:08 ## 134027 Southampton Place 2014-04-11 16:59:35 2014-04-14 01:29:05 It looks like these happened to all stations simultaneously, suggesting problems with either my collection script or the API, rather than problems with individual locations. Entries with less than 60 minutes between updates, no longer on a log scale: In the vast majority of cases, updates are approximately ten minutes apart. This encourages me to take a subset of the data (bikes.all -> bikes), considering only entries with d.updated less than 15 minutes. This eliminates many outliers in future graphs. #### Date and time of update All times of day are approximately equally represented to within ten minutes, which is good. There are five noticeable troughs preceeded by spikes, but they probably don't signify much. Dates are a lot less uniform, however. Even apart from the ten-day period where my script was broken, many days have significantly fewer updates than typical, and some have none at all. #### Number of days spent with a given number of active docks It was common for every station to report less than a full complement of docks. At least two had a full complement for less than half the time (High Holborn and Bury place are unclear in that respect). This isn't surprising, since a bike reported as defective will be locked in, using up a slot but not being available for hire. #### Journeys taken throughout the year The time of year makes very little difference to the number of rides. There appears to be a slight sinusoidal relationship, but it's very weak. (I didn't do a PMCC test because that assumes that any relationship is linear, which we would naively expect not to be the case here, and also doesn't look true from the graph.) #### Journeys by weekday Fewer journeys are taken on weekends. The median number of bikes available doesn't change much throughout the week (5 on monday and friday, 4 on other days), but the distribution does. Saturday and Sunday have noticeably different shapes to the others. They have a single peak, while weekdays are somewhat bimodal, with a small peak where the station is full (probably when people are arriving at work). (Since the stations have different numbers of docks, I did a graph of fullness rather than of number of bikes. The density plot doesn't show peaks exactly at 0 and 1 because of how the density window works, but histograms of num.bikes and num.spaces show that that's where they are. It would be difficult to use a histogram for this graph because there's no sensible binwidth.) #### Change in number of bikes between updates ## ## Pearson's product-moment correlation ## ## data: bikesnum.bikes and bikes\$prev.num.bikes
## t = 2466.8, df = 173250, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
##  0.9859301 0.9861908
## sample estimates:
##      cor
## 0.986061

There's very strong correlation between the number of bikes in adjacent entries. This is as expected, especially given what we saw about d.num.bikes previously. The colors here don't show any particular station-dependent trends.