I don't get how someone can have the unmitigated arrogance to decide that anything which appears absurd or incomprehensible must be stupid. We live in a world bounded by, indeed propped up by, absurdity: Quantum mechanics. Commoditized debt. Corporate personhood. Each of these things has made a huge impact on the world today, despite being counterintuitive.

What is it that makes people rashly decide that things must make sense to them in order to be good, or true, or reasonable?

Recently I've run into two people who argued false lines of reasoning stubbornly, because they didn't examine anything beyond what "felt right."

The first case involved someone who insisted that a 1% chance taken X times was exactly the same as an X% chance. It doesn't take much math to prove this wrong: .99^7=.932, whereas a 7% chance of success leaves a flat 93% chance of failure. Obviously 93.2 is not equal to 93. This is not just a matter of opinion; it is a mathematical fact. But even presented with this, the person said, "Ehh in my opinion it doesn't really matter."

Indeed, the difference isn't large - but that's not the question! The issue was whether there was ANY difference, which is answerable as a yes or no, and the answer was yes, not no. Changing your argument to "it doesn't really matter" after arguing that there is no difference at all is just lying to yourself about how badly wrong you were about basic maths.

The second one was a person arguing that a lawsuit against Google in Japan was ridiculous and therefore stupid. Now, I'll be the first to admit that we get a lot of ridiculous lawsuits in the USA. But I don't allow this to bias me in favor of Google, because it also gets up to pretty unprincipled stuff when nobody is looking. Furthermore, this is a different culture on the other side of the world, so it's entirely possible that something innocuous in the US is culturally sensitive there. It seemed to me that this case about Google providing links to defamatory material was actually possibly valid in Japan, which has an expectation of privacy so different that Google was banned from implementing Street View (which in the US led to rather awkward photos.)

"All this case is, is a client complaining to a lawyer about his misfortune to which lawyer says, if we hit Google we could make $"

Yes, but that describes almost every case ever, in the history of law. The entire point of suing people is to win damages (and possibly injunctions, but unless this is pro bono, the lawyer cares about damages.)

Ultimately, their argument? "This lawsuit just seems absurd to me and nothing you have said has proven otherwise."

Really? That's it? You find a legal case absurd, and because it's absurd it must be stupid and a waste of everyone's time? Lots of legal cases seem absurd! That doesn't mean they aren't useful to the legal system. When judges get these cases, they get the opportunity to expound upon, examine, and clarify legal principles from another angle.

Once upon a time, it was absurd to think that women would vote.

Once upon a time, it was absurd to think that accused men deserved to hear their rights.

Once upon a time, it was absurd to think of women as having the right to determine whether or not to have babies.

The appearance of absurdity isn't a failure of reality. It is a failure of the mind to grasp reality.

In the google case, the angle of interest to a judge isn't really "should we let a disgruntled man sue Google for a lot of money the way a woman sued McDonald's for $2.7 million over hot coffee?" I agree that punishing a company large sums of cash for doing their business exactly as described is absurd (and more importantly, not likely to be constructive to society.) But that's not the real issue there; the issue is, "Does this Japanese judge want to order google to not provide links to potentially defamatory reviews, the way that another Japanese judge already ordered them to not take photos in public?"

I'm not saying the Japanese court is going to rule one way or the other. Anime writing aside, I'm not a Japan expert, let alone a Japanese law expert. But to go so far as to say that you can find no possible redeeming value in this legal case and therefore neither can anyone else is probably something that not even a Japanese law expert would dare to suggest.

I suspect I have no proper concept of wealth.

When people talk about wealth, their minds usually fill with images of living in the lap of luxury, tipping well at every fancy dinner, getting the bar tab because they don't have to care about such trivialities, and so forth.

I, on the other hand, imagine being able to change the world with dollars, something akin to what Bill Gates is supposedly trying to do with his foundation.

So while people rage about the wealthy currently setting the bar at 7.5 million dollars, I actually think that would be kind of low for me personally to feel wealthy - because I would still need much more money in order to make a dent in the kinds of problems that irk me. I doubt I could make it happen unless I had something like $100 million. That's about the kind of money needed to, say, finance the research, clinical studies, and legal approval of a drug that can't really make pharmaceutical companies money, and thereby provide relief to all the people currently being screwed by the vagaries of research-for-profit.

It may be incredibly egotistical, but unless I could afford to do things like that, I wouldn't feel like I had enough money to do whatever I wanted. I guess I primarily care for money as a means for getting organizations to sit up and take notice, and so, money is only really important to me in astronomical quantities. This, of course, statistically guarantees that I will not acquire money in such quantities, as the ones who accumulate it tend to have a very different mindset regarding spending it.

What is wealth, to you?

Joseph Kony is being vilified by a social media campaign, Kony 2012, designed to raise awareness of his exploitation of child soldiers in Africa. Now, while I was previously aware of his villainy due to some unrelated research I had to do into Africa, I'm kind of curious as to whether or not he ought to be elevated to the status of No. 1 Most Wanted - a status that, actually, genocidal maniacs such as Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao avoided.

If we compared Kony to, say, Kissinger, which one is responsible for more human suffering?

Just trying to get perspective here.

YouTuber Jwktje has put out a surprisingly solid and very smooth mashup of Avicii's infamous 'Levels' and Super Mario World themes.

'Levels' itself is quite infectious, a trait alluded to in the music video.

A while back I had a chance to name something - something potentially bigger than myself. I was about to create and give away a guild so that others might reap the benefits. (Giving away a guild and not seeing it immediately die turned out to be harder than I thought, because guilds require maintenance, but there were still plenty of people eager to save their hard-won points.)

But what to call it? Now, it couldn't be simply stupid. Nor could it be overly self-indulgent. Yet it had to be worth it, somehow: this was my one chance to leave my mark on that which I would pass on to others. Mindful of these competing needs, I decided to go with a reference to an ancient text.

And so the Fists of Onan were born. They grew with surprising speed, filling out their roster with eager recruits and expelling only rarely.

I sometimes wonder if people understand the implications and are amused, or continue blithely unaware of the meaning of the name.

Raise up your fists, brothers.

She sighed. The cup clinked on the dark surface. "Well yes," she said, a hint of exasperation creeping in. "But why does it have to be only your railgun?"

Three people helped make it so:

Shared a recipe with someone.
Someone sent me Courage Wolf.
Someone overseas wants to send me a card.

It's always nice to see there are people willing to go to bat for you.

In this article Jay Michaelson talks about how gays are being "smeared" by being associated with polyamorists. He references an argument by Rick Santorum that once you start allowing gay marriage, you ought to allow polygamy too.

On the other hand, I don’t want to fail to draw any distinction, either. I don’t know what polyamory’s approval ratings are, but I bet they aren’t high — Newt Gingrich notwithstanding. At the very least, it would be bad politics to agree and argue that there really is no difference.

Or maybe - just maybe - it would be bad politics to be OK with a majority telling other people what to do, as long as it's not you. I mean, isn't that the entire story of the LGBT struggle - that it's not OK to tell people what to do in bed, because society shouldn't be able to exercise that kind of power over its people? Do we need to bust out the Niemoller quote?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

This article is simply terrible backpedaling - fear in the face of danger. As for me personally, I'd be OK with polyamorous marriages being legal if that's what people really wanted - it's not my business and I don't see that it can harm anyone aside from those involved, who are all consenting adults.

I suppose I can understand Michaelson's fear, to an extent. Most people in the USA really don't understand that monogamy isn't a universal moral standard. It's Western. Africa, the Middle East, and Asia had polygamists for centuries. If we really want to be a multicultural society, shouldn't we have at least a modicum of awareness of this historical context? Unfortunately, for many, polyamory falls under the "different and weird is bad" heading just as so many other things do*. It is sad, though, that at least one homosexual advocate of equal rights is eager to abandon other marginalized groups, because he sees that his group is about to get what they want.

Can't we see that this kind of politics is what keeps fringe groups on the fringe, and enables their suppression?

*Actually Christian groups ought to be the ones that are OK with it, as many of the Biblical figures practiced polygamy. Christians in Africa still practice polygamy, and this is because the culture around Christianity is different (some even argue, closer to the original context.)

Red and green, they flashing go
Through the courtyard of the soul
Knights, princes, earthly things
bow before the King of Kings

So I surrender all my trust
to One who combines love and lust
Certes, still I am amazed
at the turning of the page.