Log in

Whitepaw's Insane Scribblings

Recent Entries





April 11th, 2016

Domino effect


I'm doing my best to fight against the Investigatory Powers bill, for many reasons. One of which is that although I don't fear for my own personal safety from the government at this time, if that act passes they can become dangerous to me without me being aware of it.

Some are fighting this (and it's predecessor, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014) in the EU courts: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/27/eu-judges-could-limit-uk-surveillance-powers-before-referendum

But we have an EU in/out referendum coming up. Those courts and judgements may become irrelevant.

As a plan-B (well, plans B to J), I've been planning to look around Europe for other places to live and work. Not ideal, but also not a panicked rush — rich white men who like classical music and do no more than grumble about the monarchy or the CoE have no need to rush. Trouble is, the EU doesn't work so well as a destination for me if the UK leaves it. On the plus side, plan J is "Ireland", whose land border with the UK means we are likely to be equally close to it regardless of EU membership (at least until Northern Ireland reunites with the rest of Ireland). Plans K (Canada), L (New Zealand), M (USA) and N (Australia) have the advantage of being English-speaking, and the disadvantage of being part of the Five Eyes spy network.

If the UK votes to leave the EU, we get more spying and I get less ways out. But America would be "closer", even though the UK would never become as close as any of the states are to each other, even culturally. The love of the monarchy, the love of the £, the hatred of guns and the geographical separation would all stop that.

I could get a boat. But I'd have nowhere to put it, and I know nothing about boat maintenance nor spotting lemons. Even if I did, the open ocean isn't a realistic home — I have no way to defend against piracy nor maintain and repair a vessel as an individual. No, a boat is only realistic inside a country, and I'd still have to choose one. Perhaps a live-aboard would be good as a cheap home in the Bay Area, if I were to move there for the high salaries on offer?

If we leave the EU and if the IP bill passes with the duty-of-secrecy or forced-assistance-with-hacking-ones-own-products elements, I suspect it will be tricky to know the right thing to do. But I don't need to make the "best" choice, just a better choice than staying put. And it's still "if" to both of those at this stage.

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/177226.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

February 7th, 2016

Urban jungle


This is a typical side street in Kasarani, Nairobi, Kenya. By their standards, I'm told this is a fairly typical middle-working-class area:
click link to look at it on Imgur.
Sadie's best friend in Kenya lives there. A ground floor flat about the size of my front room, sleeping 5, divided into a kitchen, bedroom, toilet (with a dodgy water supply), and living room. The block it was part of smelled a little toilet-y. Yet her friend was very pleased that she could afford somewhere that nice.

A few rungs down from Kasarani are the slums — I walked past Kangemi when transferring from one Matatu (like a bus, but not) to another, and Sadie's mum manages (as a charity for orphans) a school in Kawangware. Kawangware doesn't have plumbing, it has holes in the ground. The street market that I walked past in Kangemi looked less sanitary than the worst public toilets I have ever seen.

I say this to give a sense of scale when I talk about The Jungle in Calais.

Sadie has been part of the aid convoys to The Jungle. She described the conditions as shocking in comparison to the slums of Kawangware.

Under international law, as I understand it, basically none of the people in The Jungle have any lawful chance of getting to the UK "because France is safe". Why are they so desperate to get into the UK that they will not claim asylum in France, and instead live in a tent city where scabies and tuberculosis are rampant? Almost none of them speak French, but I'd be surprised if that's the actual reason. It's quite likely that many wouldn't even be legally entitled to asylum in France, having travelled via other EU nations. Greece (purely by way of example), while "safe", does not seem stable to me, and certainly isn't in an economic position good enough to be worth staying in — a tent camp in France isn't likely to be worse than a tent camp in Greece.

Not that any of that really explains "why not claim in France?". My gut feeling says this is colonialism catching up with us. I expect that some of the occupants of The Jungle have friends or family in the UK, and social connection is very vitally important to humans — loneliness (even in a crowd) was something I suffered from in the first year of my degree, and in Sheffield, and I think was the cause of my most recent emo.

Personally, I don't believe that the "first safe country" rule is a good one. The first "safe" country next to a war-zone will already have a lot of extra expenses by way of border defence, and if all civilians leave you might easily double the local population. Much better to spread the load, make it a shared responsibility of the world. That this has not happened (and is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future) doesn't change that it should.

There are claimed to be eleven million empty homes in Europe — I don't know how true that really is, because surely some are condemned and about to be demolished, and others are on the market and waiting to be sold or rented — but that gives more than a factor of ten margin for error over the UN estimate for the number of refugees headed to Europe in the current crisis. Saying "we're full!", as Britain seems to, is clearly untrue.

The right solution is to stop all wars, but that 'aint gonna happen. The next best solution is for all nations to pay into a refugee crisis fund in a similar manner to insurance or tax systems and then using that fund to pay countries to take refugees, but I don't see that happening either. Blaming, punishing, and badly treating migrants for failing to follow international law may assuage consciences, but is about as sensible as prosecuting everyone in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 on the grounds that you did not, in fact, read the terms and conditions when you created your Facebook/iTunes/Google accounts.

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/177103.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

January 15th, 2016

I don't know what I want


I don't know what I want. I've been drifting through life for a long time, longer than anyone might realise. Quite possibly all of it.

I'm a software engineer. I make iPhone apps. I can't really say I care about them. The apps are too ephemeral to change the world, even when they've been in the top 10. A book will last until it rots or is destroyed, but even the oldest consumer software is younger than me.

I used to make video games. They're fun to make, but each game is about as valuable as a blog post.

I got into making iPhone apps and video games… because I did a software engineering degree? I did a software engineering degree because… I wanted to simulate spacecraft engineering… because I wanted to fly… to explore… to emulate the sci-fi shows of my childhood? Solving puzzles is fun, and once upon a time I thought programming was a heap of puzzles to work through. Now, I feel disenchanted by poorly communicated and pointless requests; "make it wider, no not horizontally, wider vertically".

At one point, briefly, I thought I wanted to start a family. Not had such a desire for years.

I put effort into saving for a home of my own, doing it with a non-mortgage loan precisely because everyone thought that was impossible and "impossible" has been an ever-tempting challenge. Even that personal loan I payed off faster than the lender, my parents, had thought possible. But now that's finished, what do I do? The flat feels small, but I feel worried about upgrading to a bigger one.

Why worry about upgrading when I have money? I don't know if I'm staying in the area or the country, thanks to the Investigatory Powers Bill. I don't know how much to fear it, so I choose to defend against it by treating it as the more dangerous of the available options. A friend has commented that Apple needs to tell the government "We cannot comply with this law without giving the same access to the Chinese government" I've just realised while writing this that I don't think that's a powerful enough statement, because I think the Chinese government already knows everything that every member of the British government does outside a SCIF-equivalent location, iPhone or not, and the British government knows that the Chinese government knows that. And the Chinese government knows the British government knows the Chinese government knows that, etc. etc.

I'm trying to travel, to explore the world. But I don't enjoy travel. I don't want to spend an hour on the bus to spend an hour on the train to be at the airport three hours before a one hour flight to a country where I will spend 48 waking hours, 4 or more on public transport to and from the hotel, before spending another 6 hours coming home.

That's not to say I've never enjoyed travel: Eurofurence 14 was amongst the best trips of my life. It was on top of a mountain, I met three or four people in person that I had previously only known online. Eurofurence 19 was decent enough, but… I think I see where part of my problem is now, writing about this. EF19 was starting to give me the feeling that things were being arranged digitally, and I wasn't part of those groups, that I wasn't involved anymore. EF20 was the first time I went with a partner. It was both overwhelming and bland — technically great (except for the really long wait for the PawPets show), yet without a soul. A 5 star hotel room the size of my entire flat, yet disconnected from those I wanted to hang out with. The next year they banned dogs, which was the kick I needed to stop going. It wasn't really about the dogs, just like it wasn't the redesign of the Facebook news feed that made me delete my Facebook account years ago, but both were the straws that pushed me away.

What's pushing me away from everything?

I want to be enthusiastic again.

Am I socially disconnected? Is it because of the person I have become, the person I have always been, or the technology? I really don't want to have to join Facebook just to be social again, it would feel like losing somehow... but when I do connect socially these days, it's arranged digitally: IRC is the most common, then Twitter, then email.

Facebook without the news feed? Seems to be a popular idea: https://github.com/maxfriedrich/quiet-facebook… I suppose I might be able to use technology to limit my obsessive need to read all the updates. On the other hand, perhaps I spend too much time reading Twitter, which has certainly consumed more of my attention recently than I would have liked it to.

I like reading, but I'm starting to feel that perhaps I like it the way I like sugar — it gives a rush of pleasure that is at some level critical to survival, yet which has been refined by businesses to become a dangerously affective high?

I don't know what I want, but enthusiasm is a good start. Oh, and dogs. I like dogs.

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/176660.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

December 22nd, 2015

Spiffing solstice


This year the winter solstice is the 22nd. I hope you all enjoy it.

If everything goes to plan, today is the day I drive down to the old family home.

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/176585.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

December 7th, 2015

Comparative advantage. I know what it is, but that's not enough to know the consequences in the same sort of way that "time dilation" isn't an obvious consequence of E=mc².

Banking. Storing money, interest, fractional reserves, insurance, shares, derivatives, liquidity, millisecond trading. Each step is an innovation that has a benefit (with a possible exception of millisecond trading). But, I've heard it said that one of the biggest problems with the UK in the Great Recession is that our economy was, and still is, too biased towards banking (well, F.I.R.E. in general). "We can't imprison the bankers, like Iceland did," the argument goes, "because the Iceland economy never depended on banking. Ours does."

OK. But, what happens then to "comparative advantage"? If we are best placed to do the world's banking because of reasons, the toy model of comparative advantage that I have says "Therefore the UK ought to do the banking". Yet, somehow, putting all of the banking here is bad for the general population — not all of it, I'm doing fine, but the typical starting salary for my career is higher than the (lifetime!) average salary of the UK.

So, what gives? Comparative advantage appears to be totally uncontroversial for real economists, and only dismissed by kooks — but this is me judging, and I know I don't know enough to do judge economic models reliably. Here are the possibilities I see:

  1. Comparative advantage is more like phlogiston than like Newton's laws of motion. Or, equally, I'm just so ill-informed that I can't make a reasonable use of this economic tool.
  2. Comparative advantage is fine, but doesn't apply to banking because banking is meta-economics.
  3. Comparative advantage is fine and applies to banks, but only works in the absence of distortions such as corruption, tax breaks, government bailouts, etc.
  4. Comparative advantage is fine and applies to banks; but just as monocultures are bad at resisting diseases, if too much of any single economy is in one sector (let alone one business) then "when they sneeze, everyone catches a cold" — in the long term it works out, but in the short term it's redundancy hell.
  5. Something else I've not even considered.

So, what's up?

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/176345.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

November 27th, 2015

Euro travel


Sadie and I are planning a trip around western Europe some time next year, and we're looking for advice.

For longer trips — multiple month trips — what is the best way of financing them?

The best way to travel?

The best sort of places to stay?

Which places are worth visiting, which cities are best to live in? And which should be avoided at literally all costs, and which should be avoided at figuratively all costs?

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/175917.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

November 16th, 2015

Drip, drip, drip


I need to turn the problems with the investigatory powers bill into stories that non-geeks would understand. And I need to reference specific parts of the proposals. Unfortunately, all I've managed to do is re-write the previous notes, tidy them up a bit and add a smattering of references.

  • Anything the government can get, hackers can get. (TalkTalk)
  • The US mandated weak cryptography on exported software for a few years in the 1990s. This forced early web developers to allow weakly encrypted connections. In 2015, security researches found they could force connections to be weakly encrypted, because of that long-repealed law. If we require communications providers to downgrade encryption on demand in the UK, the same thing will happen again.
  • Section 190 (8)
    "A person to whom a relevant notice is given, or any person employed or engaged for the purposes of that person’s business, must not disclose the existence and contents of the notice to any other person"
    makes it an offence to reveal that one is assisting the authorities. Thus, abuse cannot be meaningfully put on trial. This will lead to people like Edward Snowden doing what he did: he is facing a much harsher penalty than we are proposing, he wasn't expecting to get out of the country, and he did it anyway. It would be better for all assistance to be strictly time-limited (a year or so at most), and for any hacks we perform to be revealed after that time, as this is the only way to prevent a brain-drain of those of us who require private communications as part of our jobs (section 51 names "medical doctors, lawyers, journalists, Members of Parliament and the devolved legislatures, and Ministers of Religion", however it also includes most people like me whose job contracts include or are likely to include a non-disclosure agreement similar to this description from Wikipedia: "many NDAs require the receiving party to give the disclosing party prompt notice of any efforts to obtain such disclosure, and possibly to cooperate with any attempt by the disclosing party to seek judicial protection for the relevant confidential information").
  • Competent criminals can circumvent any limits on cryptography, even prevent acquisition of useful metadata, using software developed by the US to help dissidents in China.
  • Competent hackers can abuse any limits on cryptography to steal all passwords, including those for bank accounts. Requiring communications providers to keep the technical capacity to interfere with equipment in order to reveal communications data, will give an unlimited number of blank cheques to our enemies.
  • Section 20 says:
    Communications data is information about communications: the ‘who’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘how’ and ‘with whom’.
    This is sufficient to convert all mobile phones into average speed check monitors on longer journeys. Full data would be enough to convert most smart phones into speed check devices on almost all journeys. Given that road traffic accidents cause more than 400 times as many deaths in the UK as terrorism, it would be very easy to argue that any powers to prevent terrorism should also be used to prevent road traffic fatalities by, for example, finding and fining more dangerous drivers.
  • Sections 51-60 tries to protect professionals who handle sensitive data. However, if these professions use best practices for secure communications (as they ought to to prevent unlawful access), the security services will only be able to determine if they were allowed to view the communication after they have done so, not before.
  • The entire bill violates its own section 42 (1) (b):
    42 Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings
    (1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)—

    (b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur."
  • 41 (1) (b) also appears to prevent prosecutions for violations of the "safeguards" the bill claims to provide against misuse. However, by my reading it also seems to prevent prosecutions for violations of Section 190 (8) which means that in its current form both whistle-blowers and those they blow the whistle against would be un-prosecutable.
  • Modern technology means that people can be their own communications provider, rendering the data retention difficult-to-impossible for technically apt targets.
  • Section 30 (2) lists the ways a warrant may be served on a person outside the United Kingdom. If we are openly requiring persons outside the United Kingdom to assist us in matters of national security, we have no moral high-ground to complain when foreign nations retain the power to force persons inside the United Kingdom to assist spying for that foreign nation's national security.

As you may have noticed from clips of dashboard-camera footage and twitter accounts such as @yplac, private individuals are increasingly able to perform their own surveillance. As such, I hold the following beliefs:

  1. Everything I do online is being surveilled by multiple corporate entities.
  2. Everything I do offline will be surveilled soon, but by many different private individuals, most of whom do not share the data.
  3. Everything done by politicians and high-end lawyers is being surveilled by foreign governments.
  4. Everything done by all "protected professionals" will be surveilled soon by both the press and by special interest groups.
  5. Internet services only function correctly if encryption can be assured free from interference; without this assurance, passwords (including bank passwords) can and will leak into criminal hands.
  6. Any nation which tries to force communications providers or equipment providers to circumvent or prevent unbreakable encryption will suffer direct losses due to hacking. If these requirements are exported, many nations will suffer.
  7. Many groups and individuals concern themselves with the security of communications systems. Those that do so with criminal intent are known as "black-hat hackers", while those that try to report flaws privately and responsibly to the communications systems providers are known as "white-hat hackers". Both groups will, in time, find whatever flaws are introduced under section 189, (4), (c)
    "obligations relating to the removal of electronic protection applied by a relevant operator to any communications or data;"
    If the black-hat hackers get there first, the criminals will abuse what they find. If the white-hat hackers get there first, businesses will have a choice between doing nothing (which makes them look incompetent and result in customers taking their data elsewhere), asking the white-hat hacker to keep quiet about the flaw because it exists for legal reasons (which would violate section 190 (8)), or fixing the flaw (which ought to upset the security services but I've not yet found anything in the bill which prevents this).
  8. As the decreasing cost of citizen-on-citizen surveillance makes it inevitable, I do not seek to prevent the same surveillance by the state. However, we must modify our legal system to cope with this, as many estimates of the complexity of the legal system show most people violate many "serious" laws multiple times per day, often without even realising it. The rate of change is rapid, so we have only a few years before this harms us and we must not allow our nation to become one which makes a criminal of every citizen. Likewise, we must try to accept each other as the flawed and varied individuals we are, or the potential both for blackmail and for moral-panic-induced-laws will also destroy us.
This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/175660.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

November 8th, 2015

Talking to local MP on Monday, what should I tell her?

Obvious points so far include:

  • Hackers can, and do, break into communications providers. Anything TalkTalk knew or could provide to the government, the arrested 16-year-old hackers could also know or provide to other criminals.
  • Government equipment is also not hacker-proof, see for example recent news regarding the emails of CIA Director John Brennan, and of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The hacker group (CWA) who took credit for this also broke into a central US database for tracking arrests, Joint Automated Booking System, and are quoted as saying "Just to clear this up, CWA did, indeed, have access to everybody in USA’s private information, now imagine if we was Russia or China."
  • The US mandated weak cryptography on exported software in 1990s. This mandate is a direct cause of a bug, discovered earlier this year, affecting an estimated 8.4% of web servers and causing their communications to be vulnerable to interception by criminals.
  • Gagging orders cannot be discussed, even with MPs. Therefore, while the new law forbids the use of this data for minor offences, there cannot possibly be any prosecutions over this abuse as it would be an offence to discuss the existence of the abuse. Such abuses will occur, as we have already seen them occur with previous anti-terror laws.
  • It is trivial for competent criminals to circumvent this law, as the maths describing unbreakable encryption is simple enough to fit in on a post-card. There are many thousands of implementations of this technology, some distributed for free by groups whose primary motivations are "governments are evil and have no right to spy on us".
  • The "licence to hack" seem fine, analogous to a warrant to enter a home, but cyber security can only be enhanced if these hacks are revealed to the software providers after a certain time (perhaps conviction, trial, or dropping the case?), as whatever flaw allowed our security serviced to break in, would in time also be discovered and abused by criminals. This is not a question of "if", it is a question of "when".
  • This law will allow total enforcement of laws that intersect the digital world, yet many of the laws appear to have punishments designed to deter with the assumption that most violitions could not be caught. Consider, by analogy, what would happen if all speeding offences were fully enforced: Befordshire Police is currently being criticised by the RAC for proposing to raise funds by total enforcement of speed limits on the M1, which is only a small part of our road network. Total enforcement would stop the nation driving from an excess of fines and penalty points. Perfect enforcement of any law needs to be balanced with relaxation of that laws' punishments. Perfect enforcement of copyright law would have disabled the websites of both the Labour and Conservative parties in the 2010 election, perfect enforcement of drug laws would give 1/3rd of the adult population a criminal record on its own, and perfect enforcement of pornography laws would (based on a 2014 study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine and assuming that fantasies turn into pornography viewing habits) cause at least 121 members of parliament and 8.3 million adults nationally to be in violation of the "extreme pornography" clause of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
  • Potential for brain-drain in the IT sector.


  • Metadata is data. If the security services didn't think metadata was useful, they wouldn't be asking for it. So we know you know this. So the fact you're pretending it isn't, means you want to hide this, which means you know we won't accept you spying on us if you tell the truth.
  • Section 47(6), which defines an "internet connection record" utterly fails to characterise "the internet", "a connection" or "a record"
  • The bill appears to cover all crimes, not just "serious" crimes, make a bigger note of this in the second-last of my original points. It also covers suspects and associates of suspects, and has no clear retention limits once the government has it. So your metadata is at risk if you've ever contacted someone who's ever been suspected of not paying council tax, for example.
  • Laws initially created to force ISPs to block paedophilia on the internet have forced ISPs to develop blocking technologies. So far, so good, but when copyright holders started taking people to court, judges ordered the same technology to be used to block copyright infringement. As previously said, if this had been fully and fairly enforced, both Labour and Conservative party websites would have been blocked in the 2010 election.
  • The potential for brain drain has an associated risk of infrastructure drain. Companies will put their data centres somewhere more enlightened.
This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/175494.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

October 18th, 2015

Money is a really useful way of allocating resources (it's why we have it after all), but I don't believe that money should be the one resource that can buy all things — "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" seems like a sliding scale from "all must be equal" to "that's the point of money".

Life. NHS-style healthcare, paid out of taxation, is the best example I know of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" working near-perfectly.

Liberty. "The right to a fair trial" is necessary for justice, but it would seem more fair if prosecution and defence could be shown to be of equal competence. If the prosecution hires lawyers that charge ten times the hourly rate of the defence lawyers, the obvious question is "Why can't the defence lawyers charge that much? Are they no good?". I don't know how you solve such a problem because unlike the NHS it's not OK to just have the government pay for everyone: sometimes the government is prosecuting or defending, which is a clear conflict of interest.

But liberty also includes "I would like to go on holiday to Africa this year". You can be free to holiday in Africa without it being free to you. I see no reason anyone should be compelled to pay for another person to be entertained.

The pursuit of happiness is part liberty ("I wish to be free to marry my uncle", for example, because I've already posted about necrophilic bestiality David Cameron and thought I'd give incest a turn in the limelight), but mostly it's about the part of liberty which is choosing how your efforts turn into experiences. For those who earn their money, rather than inheriting it, that absolutely means the power to choose how your money is spent, which is exactly why some people object to taxes. (Or, in my case, to specific government projects like Trident).

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/175332.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

October 6th, 2015

Cognition and governance


The human mind seems to have an executive element that takes input from other parts of the brain, but there is a lot of argument about exactly what that means and how one might test differences.

I should ignore the temptation of arguing:

We don't know what 'general intelligence' really is, even though specific forms of intelligence like 'being good at maths' are so well understood that the cheapest of computers can beat all humans put together. This is another ineffable mental function, so it must be the root of what we mean by 'general intelligence'.

I know far too little about how minds work to just slap two unknowns together like that. It's as silly as saying "I don't understand quantum physics or consciousness, therefore consciousness is caused by quantum physics".

Besides, that's not what got me thinking. There are many different ways that an executive can combine input from those it communicates with, but they can all be described as "here are your options, here is how much weight I give to each of those giving their opinions", which is something a single perceptron can do, regardless of if it is a pure democracy (everyone has the same weighting), or a theocracy (everyone who isn't a religious leader has a weighting of zero), or whatever.

But! But that only describes governance of simple system with two options — when you have more than two options, you end up taking an impossibility theorem to the knee, and it turns from "trivial" to "provably impossible".

So, something testable: how does the executive of the human brain combine options? It might be something we learn for ourselves as we develop, in which case we might all have different solutions. Or it might be genetic, in which case and differences will follow family lines. Either way, our minds would have to show one or more of the following behaviours when we must chose between differently unpalatable options:

  • Dictatorship of one mind part
  • Restricted domain (infeasible to test, at least until we have simulated brains that accurately represent real humans).
  • Dependence of irrelevant alternatives (I think we do actually suffer from this!)
  • Or be not Pareto efficient (which we probably aren't, as that's an NP-complete problem).

Hm. Just realised, I don't know if Arrow's impossibility theorem is still problematic in the general case of all voters have different weights to each other — the trivial specific case of voter#1 has weighting 10, all others have weighting 1/2voter-number is a dictatorship.

Edit: another option is that people get stuck in analysis-paralysis, unable to come to any decision. Which we know our minds do sometimes. This may be a side-effect of trying to be Pareto efficient, but could also be a side effect of draws.

This entry was originally posted at http://whitepaw.dreamwidth.org/174859.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Powered by LiveJournal.com