handyfloss

There are two concepts that I find very interesting, and that apply to many situations, from everyday life to international politics. One concept applies to prisoners, and the other to Royalty, but their long arms reach much farther.

The “royal” concept is that of the Red Queen’s race, taken from Lewis Carrol’s Through the Looking-Glass (aka “Alice in Wonderland II”). This race is one in which runners must run the fastest they can to stay in place. To move, they’d have to run twice that fast.

The other concept is that of the prisoner’s dilemma. The dilemma is a game with the following rules (taken from Wikipedia):

Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both stay silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?

The “ideal” solution would seem both to stay silent, but if you look closely, whatever the other player chooses, any single player is better off by betraying. So, any rational player should choose to betray, even though this leads to both betraying, and gives an overall lower payoff (higher punishment for both).

Now, for the third part of the title of this post… why should we care? Well, it seems to me that we can find all around us cases of Red Queen races caused by sub-optimal solutions to prisoner’s dilemmas. For example, it is quite apparent the rise in SUVs and all-terrain vehicle sales. People here in Europe seem to start following the silly North-American custom of buying the biggest vehicle available, regardless of usability and needs fulfilled. One of the pseudo-reasons given by sellers is that SUVs are safer. Why would that be? Well, because if a small car and a SUV crash head-on, the passengers of the latter are much more likely to be less hurt than the ones in the former. This sounds rational… but is utter crap. I don’t claim that people buy these vehicles for that reason, but it helps.

Now, let’s analize the scenario: it is true that in a SUV/small car crash, the SUV is better off. However, SUV/SUV crashes are worse for all passengers than small car/small car hits are. From that information, it is apparent that we are facing a prissoner’s dilemma (not counting the fact that SUV/wall hits are also worse). Buying a SUV would be betraying, and buying a small car cooperating. The buyer of a SUV hopes that all other players/buyers get small cars, so that her option gives her an edge over the others. However, if we all think the same, we’ll all buy SUVs, and then we will reach a betray/betray equilibrium, when a coop/coop equilibrium would be better for all. We’d be running a Red Queen race, only to end up in the same place: all with SUVs, instead of all with small cars… but all with equivalent vehicles (and actually worse, overall).

Another similar situation would be that of the arms race. We all know the story: two or more countries/factions increase their weaponry, not to be overwhelmed by the other country/faction, in a potential war. Now, no matter what country A does, country B will be better off stocking more weapons: if A stays unarmed, B can beat it. If A arms itself, B has to arm itself not to be beat. However, Both countries being armed (betray/betray) is immensely worse than both countries being unarmed (coop/coop). In both cases the war is deterred by the offensive/defensive equilibrium, but in the former the risk for a catastrophe is much higher.

We are fooled by governments and army leaders, assuring us that other countries will play the “betray” card (and arm themselves), so we should play it too. However, think of the fact that in their countries, the other citizens are told exactly the same about us by their government. An no-one seems to explain that the betray/betray solution is sub-optimal, and that coop/coop solutions could exist.

I have no solution for these issues… but, dear reader, maybe you could find it if you thought about it. Please, do.

As of today, I have reached my first year of (English) Wikipedia contributions under the identity isilanes. I have accumulated over 2100 edits in that time, and created over ten new pages, not counting dozens of pictures of chemical structures I have made for chemistry articles.

Other contributions could be the logo of my University (UPV/EHU), that appears at its wikipedia page, many vandalism warnings to misbehaving users and disambiguation of links.

The constant reader, if such there be, might notice that I have made some small changes in the design of the blog. I have made the right sidebar wider, and changed the radio.blog I had there for one of the Jamendo player widgets. It features the music of groups I like from Jamendo, and will be updated automatically when I add “preferred” groups to my stats at Jamendo.

Happy listening, and I hope you don’t find the modified layout worse than the previous one.

Following my recent trend of using the blog to talk about myself, instead of about the FLOSS that gives name to the blog, and after the Wikipedia fever I talked about some days ago, I write again to say that I have surpassed the 2000 edit count in Wikipedia, as you can see following this link.

Still, as crazy and monomaniac it sounds, guess what category of Wikipedia I belong to, regarding edit count? “Prolific editors”, maybe? Or “Wikipedians with over 1000 edits”? Or “Top X Wikipedia editors”? No! I belong to “Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits” :^(

I recently discovered this little application, and I must confess it nicely fits a niche. The Eye of GNOME (eog), is a kind of clone of the Windows default picture viewer, and is a good complement for other Linux tools like ImageMagick.

I use the display tool of the ImageMagick package for highly repetitive and/or precise transformation image watching (as in putting one image above another, then watching the result, then making the composition again if it was not OK, or resizing a set of images to a given exact percent of their original size).

On the other hand, eog is nice for watching a lot of images in a row, and having them automatically resized to fit in the watch window. eog also permits smooth scrolling with the mouse wheel, very fast image rotation, and single-click window fitting of the image.

Give it a try!

Yesterday was the last day of May, and an incredibly fruitful month ended, regarding my Wikipedia edits. As you can see in the previous link, I was 75 edits short of making 1000 edits that month! Approximately one half of all the edits I have done in Wikipedia in one year (in 18 days it will be the birthday of my first edit as Isilanes), where done in May 2007!

This huge (for me) amount of edits was possible due to the kind of activity I have had in Wikipedia as of lately. I realized there are a lot of chemical structures in Wikipedia that are of low quality, and I started to improve them. The main flaw of low q images is that they are done in raster format (PNG, GIF, JPEG). This implies that they lose quality upon magnification, and that the larger they are, the more space they occupy. In contrast, vector graphics (e.g. SVG) offer a perfect quality regardless of magnification, with a constant file size, no matter what output size we ask of them.

Actually, there is a page in Wikipedia specifically devoted to listing the (chemical) images that, due to being easily translated to SVG (most chemical skeletal formulae fall in this category), and showing a low quality, are suitable for being substituted by SVG counterparts.

Once I found this page, I started using the superb free software programs ChemTool and Inkscape to draw SVG counterparts for many structures. For each structure, a file has to be uploaded, the article including the raster image has to be modified to include the SVG instead, then the raster image has to be tagged as already superseded by a SVG, and depending on the case, it can be tagged with a proposal for deletion. In that case, it has to be included in a page listing the images and media for deletion, and the original uploader of the image should be notified, as a polite measure. This implies a bunch of edits per superseded image.

A great part of my May edits also correspond to the fact that I modified a previous SVG image that was to replace a PNG of some Free Software logos. Apparently the “old” SVG had some errors, which I corrected:

PNG version of the SVG image

This logo picture was used by a tag that appears in all articles related to free software, and I starting changing the appearance of the old pic in every tag with the new pic. The result: a whole lot of edits.