## January 17, 2017

### Our Software Is a Beacon of Hope

As I draw closer to releasing the first early alpha of a library I've been working on for several years, I've noticed that it's release time coincides with some rather depressing American politics that I wish I could ignore. Unfortunately, it's difficult to ignore politicians who seek to destroy the lives of your closest friends. A common theme I've found in politics I hear from my international friends (whose countries have their own problems) is a feeling of helplessness, as though we all know terrible things are happening, but no one really knows what to do about it.

But we are not helpless. It is so easy to lose ourselves in pessimism and cynicism, to think that everything will continue to be shit simply because it's been shit for so many years. A common refrain I heard while still working at a large corporation was, we know our code is shit, but it's okay, because everyone else's code is shit. This kind of mentality really bothers me, not because it isn't true, but because it seems to reflect a resigned, cynical view of the world, and never strives to do better. Yes, everything might end up being shit in the end, but if we don't even attempt to build something better, we never will. If we hadn't been trying to write better code we never would have invented structured programming, or object oriented programming, or functional programming. Each innovation builds on the last, and each innovation has it's faults, but each brings us one step closer to not being shit.

What disturbs me is that the software industry's inability to strive for better code now mirrors a feeling of political resignation, a malaise that seems to be settling on our polarized political discourse. If democracy isn't working, what else can we do? If the entire system is corrupt, what hope do we have of fixing it? As wealth inequality rises to ever more absurd levels, our society is tumbling towards a breaking point. Just like a badly maintained software stack, our society is threatening to topple over under economic stresses it was never built to handle. How much longer can we keep it running with duct-tape and terrible hacks? It is our duty to push for real change, to build a better foundation for our future using whatever skills or resources we have.

As I prepare my library for its initial release, I'm not just zipping up a bunch of files to upload to GitHub. I'm lighting a fire, a beacon of hope that I will cast out into the endless night, praying that it might lead us to a brighter future. I am joined by millions of other flickering flames, many of whom will fade with time. A few, however, will grow larger and larger, until they bring forth a new dawn and shepherd us into a bright new future, even if only for a moment, before sinking below the horizon. Our entire society is built on these brief moments of clarity. Some are brighter than others, but all are important. Even when the night seems to stretch on without end, the rays of hope from a thousand stars can still point us in the right direction.

We all wish for a brighter future, a future free from disease and poverty and war and hunger. We seek the future that we envision for ourselves in our stories and movies. Sometimes, it seems like society is going backwards, when everything is going wrong and nothing seems to go right for anyone. But it is in these moments that we must not forget the most important thing: we cannot wait for the future to come to us, we must build it ourselves. 2016 was not a very good year for many people. 2017 shows signs of being even worse, but I don't care.

I'm going to make 2017 be a better year. I'm going to make the future I want to live in. I'm going to build the tools I wish I had. We are not pawns in some cosmic game, we are human beings. We are free agents capable of making our own decisions, and I'm making a decision to make the future happen, whether it wants to or not.

I'm not letting this year take me down without a fight.

## December 20, 2016

### Everyone Does sRGB Wrong Because Everyone Else Does sRGB Wrong

Did you know that CSS3 does all its linear gradients and color interpolation completely wrong? All color values in CSS3 are in the sRGB color space, because that's the color space that gets displayed on our monitor. However, the problem is that the sRGB color space looks like this:

Trying to do a linear interpolation along a nonlinear curve doesn't work very well. Instead, you're supposed to linearize your color values, transforming the sRGB curve to the linear RGB curve before doing your operation, and then transforming it back into the sRGB curve. This is gamma correction. Here are comparisons between gradients, transitions, alpha blending, and image resizing done directly in sRGB space (assuming your browser complies with the W3C spec) versus in linear RGB:

sRGBLinear

At this point you've probably seen a bazillion posts about how you're doing color interpolation wrong, or gradients wrong, or alpha blending wrong, and the reason is because... you're doing it wrong. But one can hardly blame you, because everyone is doing it wrong. CSS does it wrong because SVG does it wrong because Photoshop does it wrong because everyone else does it wrong. It's all wrong.

The amazing thing here is that the W3C is entirely aware of how wrong CSS3 linear gradients are, but did it anyway to be consistent with everything else that does them wrong. It's interesting that while SVG is wrong by default, it does provide a way to fix this, via color-interpolation. Of course, CSS doesn't have this property yet, so literally all gradients and transitions on the web are wrong because there is no other choice. Even if CSS provided a way to fix this, it would still have to default to being wrong.

It seems we have reached a point where, after years of doing sRGB interpolation incorrectly, we continue to do it wrong not because we don't know better, but because everyone else is doing it wrong. So everyone's doing it wrong because everyone else is doing it wrong. A single bad choice done long ago has locked us into compatibility hell. We got it wrong the first time so now we have to keep getting it wrong because everyone expects the wrong result.

It doesn't help that we don't always necessarily want the correct interpolation. The reason direct interpolation in sRGB is wrong is because it changes the perceived luminosity. Notice that when going from red to green, the sRGB gradient gets darker in the middle of the transition, while the gamma-corrected one has constant perceived luminosity. However, an artist may prefer the sRGB curve to the linearized one because it puts more emphasis on red and green. This problem gets worse when artists use toolchains inside sRGB and unknowingly compensate for any gamma errors such that the result is roughly what one would expect. This is a particular issue in games, because games really do need gamma-correct lighting pipelines, but the GUIs were often built using incorrect sRGB interpolation, so doing gamma-correct alpha blending gives you the wrong result because the alpha values were already chosen to compensate for incorrect blending.

In short, this is quite a mess we've gotten ourselves into, but I think the most important thing we can do is give people the option of having a gamma correct pipeline. It is not difficult to selectively blend things with proper gamma correction. We need to have things like SVG's color-interpolation property in CSS, and other software needs to provide optional gamma correct pipelines (I'm looking at you, photoshop).

Maybe, eventually, we can dig ourselves out of this sRGB hell we've gotten ourselves into.

## November 14, 2016

After being accused of censoring conservative news, Facebook fired all it's human editors, which was shortly followed by the algorithm being inundated with fake news. It now appears to be regretting that choice as it came under fire for potentially contributing to the rise of Trump.

This is consistent with a disturbing trend in liberal media, which is to outright censor any speech that is considered even remotely hurtful. Predictably, the definition of "hurtful" speech has gotten wider and wider to the point of absurdity, because that's what happens when you censor things! What kind perversion of progressivism is this? We're supposed to stand for freedom of information, intellectual free thought, and above all, free speech. There is a difference between free speech and harassment. You can ask people to be respectful when debating you, but you cannot ask them to censor their opinions, even if you find those opinions morally reprehensible. If someone wants to respectfully debate the morality of eating babies, you can't censor them for harassment because their only crime is holding an opinion that you disapprove of.

Fake news is yet another problem that is not going to be solved by more censorship. If a platform censors information that people want, no matter how wrong it is, they will simply find another platform that lets them share it. This is why Fox News exists. Instead of outright censoring fake stories, websites need to bring attention to falsehoods. A handy warning message prominently displayed on the article linking to an appropriate Snopes page would be a good step. This way, people are still free to share their fake news stories, but because they're doing it on your platform, you can use this opportunity to give anyone who sees it additional information that allows them to recognize the story as false. If you just censor the story, people will use another platform that you have no control over.

The answer to filter bubbles is not to simply crush the filter bubble you don't agree with. The fact that this notion is even being entertained is frightening. Culture wars are not won by suffocation, they are won by changing minds, and the only way to do that is to respect free speech and be willing to debate people who have views that are wildly and totally incompatible with yours, so long as they are respectful. Otherwise, all we will do is scream at each other, and President Trump may only be the beginning of a catastrophic chasm in America.

You can't change minds by throwing stones. This applies to both sides.

## August 18, 2016

### Blaming Inslee for Washington's Early Prisoner Release Is Unconscionable

For a guy who keeps trying to convince me he's better than Jay Inslee, Bill Bryant seems determined to ensure I never vote for him in any election, ever.

As The Seattle Times so eloquently explains, the software bug leading to the early release of prisoners dates back to 2002, and wasn't discovered by the DOC until 2012, a year before Inslee took office! Even then, Inslee didn't learn of the problem until December 16th, after which he promptly held a news conference less than a week later. He fired multiple state workers and immediately instituted a rigorous double-checking procedure at the DOC to ensure prisoners were being released on time. Given Jay Inslee's position, I simply cannot imagine a better way to handle this, short of Jay Inslee miraculously developing mind reading powers that told him to audit the DOC for no apparent reason.

The fact that Bryant is blaming Inslee simply because Inslee was the one who discovered the problem is absolutely disgusting. I hear people learning about officials covering up mistakes all the time, and people always ask why they didn't just come forward about the problem and try to fix it. Well, that's exactly what Inslee did, and now Bryant is dragging him through the mud for it. I guess Bill Bryant is determined to make sure no good deed goes unpunished.

What kind of depraved human being would crucify Inslee for something that isn't his fault? An even better question is why they think I would vote for them. There are plenty of other real issues facing Jay Inslee that would be entirely valid criticisms of his administration, but I honestly don't care about them anymore. The only thing I know is that I don't want Bill Bryant elected to any position in any public office, ever, until he publicly apologizes for his morally reprehensible behavior towards Jay Inslee. Washington state does not need a leader that attacks people for doing the right thing just so they can get a few votes. No state in the entire country deserves a leader like that.

It's clear to me that Bill Bryant, and anyone who supports his shameless mudslinging, is the reason we can't have nice things.

## July 30, 2016

### Mathematical Notation Is Awful

Today, a friend asked me for help figuring out how to calculate the standard deviation over a discrete probability distribution. I pulled up my notes from college and was able to correctly calculate the standard deviation they had been unable to derive after hours upon hours of searching the internet and trying to piece together poor explanations from questionable sources. The crux of the problem was, as I had suspected, the astonishingly bad notation involved with this particular calculation. You see, the expected value of a given distribution $X$ is expressed as $E[X]$, which is calculated using the following formula:
$E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} x_i p(x_i)$
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance, and the variance is given in terms of the expected value.
$Var(X) = E[X^2] - (E[X])^2$
Except that $E[X^2]$ is of course completely different from $(E[X])^2$, but it gets worse, because $E[X^2]$ makes no notational sense whatsoever. In any other function, in math, doing $f(x^2)$ means going through and substitution $x$ with $x^2$. In this case, however, $E[X]$ actually doesn't have anything to do with the resulting equation, because $X \neq x_i$, and as a result, the equation for $E[X^2]$ is this:
$E[X^2] = \sum_i x_i^2 p(x_i)$
Only the first $x_i$ is squared. $p(x_i)$ isn't, because it doesn't make any sense in the first place. It should really be just $P_{Xi}$ or something, because it's a discrete value, not a function! It would also explain why the $x_i$ inside $p()$ isn't squared - because it doesn't even exist, it's just a gross abuse of notation. This situation is so bloody confusing I even explicitely laid out the equation for $E[X^2]$ in my own notes, presumably to prevent me from trying to figure out what the hell was going on in the middle of my final.

That, however, was only the beginning. Another question required them to find the covariance between two seperate discrete distributions, $X$ and $Y$. I have never actually done covariance, so my notes were of no help here, and I was forced to return to wikipedia, which gives this helpful equation.
$cov(X,Y) = E[XY] - E[X]E[Y]$
Oh shit. I've already established that $E[X^2]$ is impossible to determine because the notation doesn't rely on any obvious rules, which means that $E[XY]$ could evaluate to god knows what. Luckily, wikipedia has an alternative calculation method:
$cov(X,Y) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - E(X))(y_i - E(Y))$
This almost works, except for two problems. One, $\frac{1}{n}$ doesn't actually work because we have a nonuniform discrete probability distribution, so we have to substitute multiplying in the probability mass function $p(x_i,y_i)$ instead. Two, wikipedia refers to $E(X)$ and $E(Y)$ as the means, not the expected value. This gets even more confusing because, at the beginning of the Wikipedia article, it used brackets ($E[X]$), and now it's using parenthesis ($E(X)$). Is that the same value? Is it something completely different? Calling it the mean would be confusing because the average of a given data set isn't necessarily the same as finding what the average expected value of a probability distribution is, which is why we call it the expected value. But naturally, I quickly discovered that yes, the mean and the average and the expected value are all exactly the same thing! Also, I still don't know why Wikipedia suddenly switched to $E(X)$ instead of $E[X]$ because it stills means the exact same goddamn thing.

We're up to, what, five different ways of saying the same thing? At least, I'm assuming it's the same thing, but there could be some incredibly subtle distinction between the two that nobody ever explains anywhere except in some academic paper locked up behind a paywall that was published 30 years ago, because apparently mathematicians are okay with this.

Even then, this is just one instance where the ambiguity and redundancy in our mathematical notation has caused enormous confusion. I find it particularly telling that the most difficult part about figuring out any mathematical equation for me is usually to simply figure out what all the goddamn notation even means, because usually most of it isn't explained at all. Do you know how many ways we have of taking the derivative of something?

$f'(x)$ is the same as $\frac{dy}{dx}$ or $\frac{df}{dx}$ even $\frac{d}{dx}f(x)$ which is the same as $\dot x$ which is the same as $Df$ which is technically the same as $D_xf(x)$ and also $D_xy$ which is also the same as $f_x(x)$ provided x is the only variable, because taking the partial derivative of a function with only one variable is the exact same as taking the derivative in the first place, and I've actually seen math papers abuse this fact instead of use some other sane notation for the derivative. And that's just for the derivative!

Don't even get me started on multiplication, where we use $2 \times 2$ in elementary school, $*$ on computers, but use $\cdot$ or simply stick two things next to each other in traditional mathematics. Not only is using $\times$ confusing as a multiplicative operator when you have $x$ floating around, but it's a real operator! It means cross product in vector analysis. Of course, the $\cdot$ also doubles as meaning the Dot Product, which is at least nominally acceptable since a dot product does reduce to a simple multiplication of scalar values. The Outer Product is generally given as $\otimes$, unless you're in Geometric Algebra, in which case it's given by $\wedge$, which of course means AND in binary logic. Geometric Algebra then re-uses the cross product symbol $\times$ to instead mean commutator product, and also defines the regressive product as the dual of the outer product, which uses $\nabla$. This conflicts with the gradient operator in multivariable calculus, which uses the exact same symbol in a totally different context, and just for fun it also defined $*$ as the "scalar" product, just to make sure every possible operator has been violently hijacked to mean something completely unexpected.

This is just one area of mathematics - it is common for many different subfields of math to redefine operators into their own meaning and god forbid any of these fields actually come into contact with each other because then no one knows what the hell is going on. Math is a language that is about as consistent as English, and that's on a good day.

I am sick and tired of people complaining that nobody likes math when they refuse to admit that mathematical notation sucks, and is a major roadblock for many students. It is useful only for advanced mathematics that take place in university graduate programs and research laboratories. It's hard enough to teach people calculus, let alone expose them to something useful like statistical analysis or matrix algebra that is relevant in our modern world when the notation looks like Greek and makes about as much sense as the English pronunciation rules. We simply cannot introduce people to advanced math by writing a bunch of incoherent equations on a whiteboard. We need to find a way to separate the underlying mathematical concepts from the arcane scribbles we force students to deal with.

Personally, I understand most of higher math by reformulating it in terms of lambda calculus and type theory, because they map to real world programs I can write and investigate and explore. Interpreting mathematical concepts in terms of computer programs is just one way to make math more tangible. There must be other ways we can explain math without having to explain the extraordinarily dense, outdated notation that we use.