Intrusive thoughts

I often have thoughts about all the shitty things I’ve done during my life. The people I trusted and then betrayed, or the times I’ve made the wrong choices and lost out. At this time in my life in particular I keep being haunted by the thoughts of all my mistakes which led me up to this point, and I find myself cursing the people who in some way helped get me into this mess. I need to remember two things. First: I can’t change the past, and while remembering it is a good guide to not repeating it, focusing on it is unhealthy. Second, I got myself into this just as much as anyone else. I can’t act like I was blameless. As the song goes, though I did not pull the trigger, I built the gun. And eh sometimes I did pull the trigger.

I’m sitting here remembering a lot of times when I made the wrong choice, thinking of how my life would be otherwise, and that’s not healthy. So whenever this happens I instead need to focus my energies into something new and productive, like honing my skills or searching for new opportunities. New opportunities basically means jobs, and I’m working on that. My skills is a harder one, science isn’t something you can practice at home. But I think coding is, and I should take up some coding projects in my free time to at least give me something to look back on as a success story.

So with that in mind here are a few synopses of games I’ve thought about in my head.

Geniuses who are able to build wonder machines out of spare parts are tasked with defeating martian invaders who only they can see. The game would feature a comprehensive “wonder” system where you can specify and build a specific device for a given purpose. A gun perhaps, or an airship, or a cloning machine that creates replicas of your dead soldiers. But every wonder comes with a price, they all have a base fault which can never be removed. The gun may be possessed by a committed pacifist, and its spirit must be placated before it allows itself to be fired. The airship may have an inscrutable control scheme that seems to change every time you fly it,
necessitating that pilots sit and re-familiarize themselves with it before or during each flight. The cloning machine may work on “life for a life” principles, meaning any gain of life must be paid for upfront and in full.

A turn based strategy FPS. America does a bit of nation building in Mexico after our policies and others lead to a civil war their which threatens America’s interests. The new model army is not one of vast bomber formations or miles of tanks, it is one of small strike forces of a handful of troops, using every weapon at their disposal to isolate and eliminate threats with surgical precision. To this end, an experimental unit of marines is given brain implants which allow them to communicate instantaneously with each other across the battlefield and to strategize their moves. Part of this is the BullShit system (I need a name for it) where the player can pause the game and see the locations of all of their and the enemy soldiers within range on the battlefield. The player can then give orders to each of their units in turn which will be executed together once the pause is ended, essentially allowing them to plan a coordinated series of moves from their own and other characters in order to act as a team to take down threats. Several units can provide covering fire as two outflank from either side. One unit can juggle an enemy into the air while another takes to the skies, attaches a grenade to his chest, and throws him down at a separate enemy position. As part of this planning, the player would see what the predicted movements of the enemies would do in response to the early movement that the player queues up. Early game enemies have slow reaction times and can basically be seen to do little in response to the player’s planned movements, making them easy prey to be eliminated according to the player’s plans. Later enemies will in kayfabe have the same skills the player has and be able to react reflexively to whatever strategy the player plans. The player will have to account for an enemy’s reactions, and in some way create a strategy that they can’t escape from like coming at them from multiple angles. The overall gameplay outside of turn based mode should be hectic and action-y, but with a pace that is too fast for twitch reflexes, and will thus encourage the player to use their abilities to plan movements against the enemies in turn based mode.

A time capsule, hopefully of the past.

I don’t watch much TV, but occasionally I’ll glance over at a show and see actors or sets in masks. Hopefully those eventually become a time capsule of our age, forgotten about as vaccination rates climb and COVID-19 hospitalizations drop. Shows shot during or set during the 2020s might include masks for COVID, but better vaccinations and drugs should make this unnecessary. COVID-19 is not the first nor will it be the last novel respiratory virus to infect humans, and after every new virus we have and should continue to adapt and overcome to the point that we can live with it “normally.” I don’t foresee a scenario in which any virus could force a permanent change to how humans inhabit our planet. 100 thousand
years ago, novel viruses were springing up in our ancestor’s societies, and yet even without vaccines each new one was overcome. Survivors (of whom most vaccinated people are expected to be) gain immunity to the virus, it’s a sort of truism of immunology that you cannot clear a virus without gaining some form of immunity. Some viruses never clear of course, and hang around in the body waiting for immunity to die off so they can re-emerge. But if a virus is TRULY cleared, and by all accounts COVID is a virus that can be cleared from the body, then it has to be done by the actions of immune system systematically gaining an adaptive advantage over the virus through antibody production, cell-mediated immunity or otherwise. If the immune
system doesn’t gain this advantage, then the virus just continues to multiply and kills the host. And once the immune system gains this advantage, then it should be better equipped to deal with any future infection from the new virus, even mutant forms of it. Viruses mutate all the time, but antibodies and T-cell receptors can also be adapted by the body to these new, mutated forms.

During the pandemic I saw a lot of fears that this virus was going to be so terrible, that some of the following would happen:
People would never become immune even after clearing the virus
Prior infections would not give defense against future infections
Vaccines could never be developed which would give immunity
COVID was going to kill off everyone

The people saying these things didn’t really know it, but for these fears to be true basically all of recorded immunology would have to be false. If you don’t develop immunity than you cannot clear the virus, clearing it is an EFFECT of the gain in immunity. This gain in immunity must by necessity protect against future infections which come from the same viral sero-types. And since COVID shows no evidence of being a latent virus, then vaccines against it must be possible. Finally it would be basically impossible for COVID to kill everyone, in any scenario there would be some people among the 7 billion on earth who by some mutation would be immune to the virus, and even if all the rest of us died off they would continue on.

I think some of this could have been brought on by a sort of doomerism that is probably common among all societies. “Giant Meteor of Death 2016” was something of a meme I recall pushed by people claiming the world was so shit it was better to just end it all. Pretty much every society goes through those feelings, and a global pandemic may have seemed like the realization of exactly those fears that society would or should be destroyed. But that just didn’t happen, and the people claiming that vaccinated folks shouldn’t go out and socialize like it’s 2019, well I kind of view them as essentially anti-vaxxers. For they deny what we all know, that vaccines are safe and effective at protecting from the disease.

Some people don’t realize that immunity isn’t a light switch, it isn’t on and off. It’s a sliding scale and can be modified by many things. Humans have a natural immunity shielding us from many many viruses already, whether through altered proteins that the viruses cannot well attach to or through innate pathways that defend against pathogens. Meanwhile immunity can be weakened by things such as obesity, pregnancy, emotional state, etc. So it isn’t a switch that once you are immune you never get COVID, rather gaining
immunity gives you a much lower chance of catching COVID later, but less chance is never no chance.

I’ve often come back to thoughts of fusion power, and I think the excuses brought up by fusion-boosters don’t hold water. The general feeling among futurologists is that fusion power was undone by greedy and short-sighted budget cuts, that if only more money had been given to fusion research we could have had working fusion generators to solve all our energy needs. I think this viewpoints is a bit too “Sid Meier’s Civilization” for my liking. It seems to assume that any technology has a set “cost,” and if you can just spend enough resources you are guaranteed unlock and that technology and gain access to its benefits. This sidesteps the issue of if fusion power is even feasible on earth, or if it were in any way feasible with the 1960s technology in use during Fusion’s early heyday. If America had plowed all of the Apollo-program money into fusion power instead, would it really have just “worked?” Was the metallugy, magnetic control, computer control, and plasma physics advanced enough to allow for the construction of fusion plants? I have my doubts, and I’d like to compare fusion to other 1960s technologies that DID work.

The most unflattering comparison that can be made is to fusion power’s close cousin, fission power. In the 60s fission power plants sprung up and became profitable, with some of these profits being re-invested into their technology, creating better fission power plants which could make more profits, which could be invested in better technology and so on. This is called a “virtuous cycle” and it is key to a technology’s success. Fusion power by contrast never brought in revenue. There was never a point where Energy Out > Energy In. No power could ever be sold to the grid or anyone else, thus fusion research could only be continued on the back of private investments and government grants. But unlike other technologies which relied on similar philanthropy, fusion never had the kind of positive results that could be spun into future funding, it only ever had dreams. There’s a common refrain that “we spent billions on the Apollo missions, we could have spent is on X instead” where X is usually fusion power. But the Apollo wasn’t just a money hole, it had genuine successes which could be used to politically justify its continued investment from the government. The first American in space, the first American in earth orbit, the first space-walk and the first trip around the moon. There were setbacks and deaths, but there were enough successes to make the program politically viable. And even besides the government, there were profitable private ventures into space, with satellites being launched and leased for the transmission of radio and other signals worldwide. These transmissions themselves could bring in revenue which fed the virtuous cycle. Even without a cent of government investment, it is conceivable that a manned moon mission would have been possible off the back of these private enterprise successes. Where were the successes of fusion power? Where was the first power plant which created clean, if perhaps unprofitable power, thus justifying continued investment? Where was the first solenoid or tokamak which was demonstrated to be able to contain 100-million degree plasma for days or weeks or months on end, as would be necessary for a sustained fusion power plant? Every milestone in the history of fusion power was people learning about why they had failed the targets they had set previously. If goals could be set and achieved, then maybe a virtuous cycle could have been created whereby prior successes fuel future investment, but alas it never happened.

The virtuous cycle is key to any technological adaptation. If investment isn’t leading to new revenue, then investment will dry up. And I think this is forgotten by a lot of tech enthusiasts, who would rather believe in conspiracy theories to explain why their favorite technology succeeded or failed. Yes oil and coal companies were threatened by fusion power. They were also threatened by fission power, and by wind power and by solar power. Yet throughout the 20th century none of those technologies utterly failed in the way fusion did. Wind and solar in particular continue to advance at a staggering rate, and more wind and solar power is being added every year. The vast power of oil companies has not managed to kill off
Tesla or Solar Star, even though those technologies were once a far off dream just like fusion. And more to the point a conspiracy among fossil fuel companies to kill off fusion would require them to be the only entities in the world unaffected by the prisoner’s dilemma. If fusion power is a profitable venture, then the first energy company to successfully use it can kill off its rivals and corner the market. Why would greedy coal companies pass up the opportunity to drive all their competitors out of business and make billions or trillions of dollars in profit off of safe, clean energy? The usual explanation is that fusion power would be SO cheap that fossil fuel companies would be unable to make a profit, but that is just economic illiteracy. Energy isn’t expensive because coal is expensive, energy is expensive because the market will willingly pay for it at a high price. If a coal company suddenly switches to fusion power, they can and will continue to charge the same rate because that is the rate the market will pay. And if fusion is clean and cheap, the coal company will pocket the revenue as almost pure profit. They company can lower its prices to gain market share and drive rivals out of business, but companies are profit-maximizing, they won’t willingly lower prices to a point where they’re making less than what they could. Any reduction in energy price would have to be made up for in increased market share, and thus increased gross profit for the coal (now fusion) company. And if it really were that simple, then coal companies all over the world would have switched to fusion power. Trying to make a conspiracy to strangle fusion power in its crib wouldn’t work, because again of the prisoner’s dilemma. The first company to break the conspiracy and create fusion power reaps all of the profits at the others’ expenses. The only way out of the prisoner’s dilemma is for all the coal companies to be perfect altruists who would never harm someone else for personal gain, but the entire history of coal companies proves that to be a lie.

I think if fusion power were possible and profitable, then it would be a great technology for our age, helping a huge number of problems overnight from climate change to the cost of living crisis. But it also seems clear that fusion power isn’t currently possible and that throwing more money at the problem isn’t guaranteed to solve it.

What I’ve learned about airplanes (from disaster literature at least) is that the safest time to fly is at daylight with clear skies and good weather. Most accidents appear to be caused by or exacerbated by adverse weather and darkness. But I’d love to know the actual stats on this, since mechanical failure for example could happen at any time. What exactly is the breakdown between day/night, or sunny/adverse weather? How much safer is a daylight flight in clear skies to a nighttime flight in the sleet or a thunderstorm? And are certain routes more prone to problems dues to either their weird and wacky airports or perhaps the conditions on the flight path itself? I’m sure some FAA nerd knows the stats on that, so if anyone who reads this knows an FAA nerd, tell them to get in touch so I can ask them :).

The FAA nerds who keep our skies safe have a particular philosophy and process for ensuring continued safety and improvement. Whenever an adverse event happens, they open an investigation into not only the background and causes of the event, but in how all the systems leading to the event can be improved in the future. NASA I believe has a similar system, but I think NASA’s system is entirely in house, not under the jurisdiction of the FAA. So it raises the thought for me: who investigates or will investigate adverse events (crashes, loses) that happen in Space? If next year a Blue Origin flight blows up killing 10 people, who rights the rules and regs that make sure this never happens again? Obviously the market solution will be that Blue Origin takes such a hit to their reputation that only improved safety by themselves and other space-liners will entice customers back to space, but I don’t think we can rely on a market solution here, as customers probably don’t have the knowledge or capacity to accurately discern the actual quality of safety of a space-travel package, especially with such a low-probability event as a death in space. So does the FAA regulate these jokers, or someone else? I’d like to know.

I think some people don’t really understand the challenge of “skipping off” the atmosphere as was presented in Apollo 13. I’ve spoken to people who seemed to think that it was akin to skipping a stone off of water (understandable), where a space craft’s momentum is somehow redirected due to contact with the atmosphere. As I understand it however, skipping off
the atmosphere is a failure to slow down. On a return orbit from the moon (or Mars, or what have you), a spacecraft’s velocity relative to the earth is tremendous. Landing on the earth is basically akin to bringing your velocity relative to the earth to 0 m/s, and with a huge velocity, these spacecraft has a lot of speed they need to lose. If they come in too steeply, then they will lower their relative velocity in a way that is unsafe, either by burning up in the atmosphere or by lithobraking (crashing) into the ground below. If they
come in too shallow then they will simply not lose enough velocity to land. What does it mean to not lose enough velocity? Well a return orbit from the moon is basically a very long oval orbit. If the earth had no atmosphere, then it would take several days or weeks for a craft to complete an orbit along that oval. Because the earth has an atmosphere, the craft will slow down and the obit will shrink, but if the craft doesn’t slow down enough then it will simply continue to ride along that oval for the days or weeks that it takes to complete one full orbit, at which point it returns into earth’s atmosphere and gets another chance for the atmosphere to slow it down. This isn’t actually that bad except that spacecraft don’t have the provisions necessary for such a long trip, and so the astronauts would die of water/food/air deprivation by the time their craft had slowed sufficiently to fall to earth.

The craft could still make it back to earth in tact (if the parachutes could deploy), but the astronauts wouldn’t make it. That was the “skipping off” fear for Apollo 13, that the astronauts would slowly die aboard their craft while NASA could do nothing but watch helplessly.

What is the fuel efficiency of travel by plane vs travel by rocket? On the black-and-white TV show “you bet your life,” one of Groucho’s guests was supposedly an aerospace engineer engineering rockets as the future of long-distance transportation saying that “you could get to Australia in less than 4 hours.” This led Groucho to quip “so the Soviets are going to the moon and we’re going to Australia?” which was hilarious but did speak to the feeling at the time that America was losing the race despite post-1991 evidence showing that the USSR never had any sort of capacity to get a manned mission to the Moon. Anyway, over 50 years ago rockets were seen as a fast alternative to airplanes but they still aren’t used. Why is that? I guess the time saved (4 hour flight vs 24 hr?) isn’t enough to make up for the added cost, but I’d like to know how those added costs break down and in particular, how much of an added cost is fuel? In my playthroughs of Kerbal space program I’ve often marveled at the seeming efficiency of turbojet engines compared to liquid fuel rockets. Turbojets seem capable of getting incredibly high Delta-V on incredibly small amounts of propellant, and furthermore a plane seems capable of visiting any spot on the planet for a small fraction of the fuel cost of a rocket ship. But how true is this really? Certainly the ability to use oxidizer from the air instead of bringing it on board is a weight saver, but are the jet engines also so much more efficient in a Delta-V/weight calculation? Probably, or else rocket travel would have taken off by now.

Streams of Consciousness

I have a friend who I might describe as “too Catholic”. When I told him how badly I fucked up my life recently he told me that doing bad things doesn’t make me a bad person, and that as long as I repented and did good things instead of bad things, then I could still be a good person. That’s fine and all but shame is a powerful motivator for doing better, and if I don’t receive enough of it to change my behavior then I think I will need more motivation. To that end I want to start a blog of my own. An anonymous blog,
but one where I can document both my thoughts and hopefully my progression towards being a better person. There are a lot of things about myself that I need to change in order to be a better person, and writing this first post on an aircraft where my neighbors can read it over my shoulders is not making this any easier.

To start with I thing I need to take stock of my strengths and weaknesses. I’ve been living a bit too much in a childhood fantasy land thinking that if I put my mind to things then I’ll succeed, but it doesn’t always work that way. I need to be more honest about myself and be willing to drop things that I’m not good at. Digging too deeply into an area I was not good at is what got me into this mess.

I do think I have the skills to succeed in science, I just don’t know where.

I do not think that I should stay in places where I feel I constantly need to get away. If I’m working somewhere where I just constantly feel I need to get the hell out at the end of the day and run away, then something is terribly wrong, and no amount of money will make it right.

I think I need to focus my energy inward, I’m too caught up in the past. They say the best revenge is a life well lived and I need to have one of those.

As for other strengths and weaknesses, hopefully those will come to me as I continue this blog and my career, but for now I think just putting words to paper is cathartic, if perhaps not very useful in the short term.