Nerve endings

The reason behind “how did we get here” […] is that the people who are regulating the Internet have mistaken the Internet — in this case — for a newspaper delivery service. And sometimes we get really dumb policies that mistake the Internet for a video-on-demand service, and sometimes for a jihadi recruiting tool, and sometimes for a pornography distribution system — and it is all of those things, because the Internet is the nervous system of the 21st century.

— Cory Doctorow at a #SaveTheLink live Q&A.

banksy-television-heads

Television-Internet

Hossein Derakhshan, known as Iran’s Blogfather, warns of the ongoing cultural changes regarding the Web:

The stream, mobile applications, and moving images all show a departure from a books-internet toward a television-internet. We seem to have gone from a non-linear mode of communication – nodes and networks and links – toward one that is linear, passive, programmed and inward-looking.

Sometimes I think maybe I’m becoming too strict as I age. Maybe this is all a natural evolution of a technology. But I can’t close my eyes to what’s happening: a loss of intellectual power and diversity. In the past, the web was powerful and serious enough to land me in jail. Today it feels like little more than entertainment. So much that even Iran doesn’t take some – Instagram, for instance – serious enough to block.

continuation-monad-transformer

Formalizing the intuitive

“You might think, well that’s just common sense. But last I checked, computers don’t have common sense. Indeed, they must have a formal way to automate these kind of code optimizations. Maths has a way of formalizing the intuitive, which is helpful amidst the rigid terrain of computer logic.”

Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming on Wadler’s free theorems

Seven Greek Myths

The political and societal crisis currently sweeping the European Union is a topic I try not to get into here, as it touches and inflames bad things in me.

To be clear: I call it a political and societal crisis because that’s what it is. As Maslow said, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” What, then, should one expect, when one is run by finance, corporations, the nonelected, and generally compromised institutions and politicians of selfish neoliberal ideologies?

Before I get too caught up in this, here it is:

Seven Greek Myths

What is happening in Greece frightens many. A proper democratic process, by nature, threatens power structures in place. As power seeks to perpetuate itself, any attempt at democracy must be promptly squashed, by any and all means available. A result of this is the campaign of terror waged in Greece and across the Union.

Yesterday, the people of Greece firmly said όχι, which in my book translates to dignity. It isn’t a vote of ignorance, of vain delusions, or of irresponsibility; it is a resolute and proud acknowledgment of the challenges they face and the utmost expression of a nation’s desire for democracy and sovereignty.

I have nothing but the highest respect for the citizens of Hellen.

minified-lodash

Long anonymous chains of things

I recently had a conversation at work on possible coding advice, that quickly diverged into a matter of what I feel is code that speaks for itself vs. code that is ridden with comments because it can’t live on its own.

I tried to illustrate my point by defending some practices on clarity, which really are just a repackaging of common ideas from the world of “functional” programming — adopting recognizable patterns via higher-level functions, aiming for declarative code, centered around data transformations, etc. — in contrast with what I’d consider traditional imperative code — longer methods built around statements, more (and explicit) branching, mutable data and variable reassignments, etc.

My colleague then rightfully remarked that, while map, reduce, filter et al. can be used to make things clearer, they can be abused, and chaining a bunch of these can lead to monstrous spaghetti just as badly as more traditionally imperative code. Similarly, list comprehensions can be nice and concise, but don’t really scale. That got us to try to generalize, which lead to my commenting:

I agree that “functional” code, in itself, isn’t immune to spaghettitis. I think the key here is really to keep functions small and as strongly specified as possible, so that 1) one can easily inspect them and understand what piece they represent in the larger chain of data transformations, and 2) anyone can think of them as black boxes (by trusting their specification; not specific to functional, but usually easier, especially with referential transparency) as they are called within a chain of manipulations elsewhere in the code.

In a way, maybe the root of all evil is just about anything we can call a “long anonymous chain of things”. So a long sequence of function compositions in one statement is bad, the same way a long sequence of rules within a list comprehension is bad, the same way a long sequence of statements within a procedure is bad. I added the term “anonymous” in there because I think the naming plays an essential role in the way we can break things down and grasp them. That is why my initial functional example [see below] defined isPopular separately, and it’s why a procedure might be defined in “paragraphs”, where each revolves around a variable or a helper.

Selective History

Where I come from1, when the state of democracy and society is the matter in hand, people might still—though rarely—be heard invoking Mai 68. What I had never heard, however, is this fine thread of 20th century history echoing from Scandinavia:

How Swedes and Norwegians broke the power of the ‘1 percent’

I will let the piece speak for itself, and just add this remark:

In my mind, the Swedes and the Norwegians had always lived a [relatively] stable life, one of high societal standards, throughout the past century; there had never been major shifts, nor power struggles, such as the ones described; exaggerating this Mediterranean layman’s perspective, they had “always” been, as though by nature, members of a just and wealthy—by all measures, not just financially—civilization. I was naïf. But I was also the recipient, since my early school days, of a conveniently tailored history of the world.

And yet there’s profound value in this particular thread. Not just because one may extract hope from it, but because it shows how, repeatedly, aiming for anything less than a truly democratic2 society is a recipe for disaster.


  1. things are very bad in most of Europe, but the current Portuguese government gave its citizens front-row tickets to Let’s Destroy 40 Years of Democracy in a 4-Year Term. 
  2. in its etymological sense 
Link

We can’t trust Uber

New York Times: We can’t trust Uber

Not just Uber, but all the usual suspects.

Somewhere in the next couple of decades, there will be a tipping point. Scientific breakthrough in distributed systems will have to top the unassailable power, efficiency and convenience of today’s huge central service providers and gatekeepers. Why? Because no amount of regulatory oversight can prevent centralized abuse of power; this article provides just one of countless examples.

That new wave of decentralization may come through home-scaled nodes; it may come through communal pools, similarly to the feudalism of early days Internet. Either way, it has to come and succeed.

Aside

15.000 km

As it reached 15.000 km, my road Décathlon’s frame snapped out of the blue. I guess it’s time to steer away from aluminum. In its defense, it’s taken quite a beating, including a head-on collision with an oncoming car a few years ago. The staff at the store were astonished—indeed, the thing looks like it was sawn. Here’s to you, old treacherous friend. Meanwhile, the hunt for steel frames begins.

Code creep

I’ve just read a wake-up call from Cory Doctorow:

We are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell.

Try as I might, I can’t shake the feeling that 2014 is the year we lose the Web. The W3C push for DRM in all browsers is going to […] fuck you in every possible way.

(I may have taken some liberties with the quoting. Full article.)

The Web is abuzz with the NSA, PRISM and TOR. TOR and—generally speaking—end-to-end encryption address privacy concerns with regard to the infrastructure of the Internet and its tampering by external agents. Notwithstanding the graveness of that struggle, Doctorow is making the case for something else here. It’s about proprietary code creeping into the Web.

Proprietary, unaccounted, unaudited—unauditable!—code. Code that is forever vulnerable to attack, and yet that you cannot get rid of. Code that can do whatever it is that its governing bodies want it to do. Code that is guarded by draconian laws, under the guise of protecting intellectual property and the copyright monopoly; laws under which you effectively lose ownership and control of your browsing, as attempts to circumvent, disable or modify said code will get you in legal dire straits. Up until now, you could choose to avoid proprietary code, just as you could choose to trust one particular vendor’s proprietary code; that could however change.

How can it be so? How can this code creep into our browsing under our noses? Web standards. The standards that specify how the Web works and evolves, what (originally: open) technologies are used, and so on. These are followed by browser makers, as we all need to speak the same language for there to be one true Web.

DRM, by design, is made of proprietary, hidden code. If the powers that be decide to mess with standards and push for DRM, proprietary code will be pushed as Web standards. Browser makers will be somewhat forced to follow suit, for fear of their products becoming Web-incompatible; Netflix, mentioned in the article, has a ton of leverage in this regard. Oh, and did we mention that the MPAA—the Hollywood Mafia—is apparently now a member of the World Wide Web Consortium? We’re in for a bumpy ride.

Take Action: Defend the Open Web: Keep DRM Out of W3C Standards