A chronicle of the things I find interesting or deeply important. Exploring generally 4 pillars of intense research. Dynamic Cognition (what every one else calls AI), Self Healing Infrastructures (how to build technological Utopia), Autonomous work routing and Action Oriented Workflow (sending work to the worker) and Supermortality (how to live...to arbitrarily long life spans by ending the disease of aging to death.)
Search This Blog
Speciation pressures come in two interacting forms, spatial and cultural separation.
"But being on the way to becoming a new species isn’t the same thing as actually speciating. Actual speciation without isolation is quite rare, and even the Santa Cruz Island jays have not actually speciated, and may never even do so. But the implications for long-held evolutionary principles are intriguing. Darwin’s famous Galapagos finches certainly prove that isolation leads to speciation, but now it may be that isolation isn’t always necessary to get species to diverge."
1) The theory of evolution never states what the parameters of "separation" are, it simply demonstrated that strict spatial separations do lead isolated populations to local adaptations and eventually speciation over time. This is a separate thing however from saying that to have speciation one must have *strict spatial separation*. This is key because....
2)There is one other way where by populations can become separated. What is it? Culturally. This would include in other animals specialization within a given strata like the various beak shapes of these birds...in this case adaptations sufficient to exploit the available food sources optimally but not sufficient to induce true speciation ...at least as measured by the *ability* for the birds to mate and create viable progeny...but with culture some times you don't want to do that with a mate that is not appealing to you.
We actually as a species are a very clear example of this at any given moment of time...human beings are a single species but in the past our ancestors via separation and isolation have evolved into divergent lines of homonids...from the ancient homo erectus populations that left Africa for the first time around 2 million years ago to the homo neanderthals that evolved from those erectus to later radiations of early homo sapiens and then homo sapiens...which over a very short period of relative time were able to populate pretty much every planetary niche and quickly begin cultural and physical adaptation to those regimes while still maintaining genetic reproductive capability.
Yet when we come together our cultural elements...our languages our physical distinctions of appearance place strong vectors of conformance to remain in group reproducing despite our very close physical /spatial proximity in our large cities. It's not at all a surprise that we do this, or why more or less we tend to mate along phenotype alignment but that's exactly what we are seeing with these birds.
Over a longer time of observation this pattern of course goes away as culture melts together and phenotypes munge together as individuals mate across the gap to create hybrid populations (which tend to be more fit in a mixed environment)...so it would seem that though physical separation is sufficient to create and maintain phenotypic isolation it is not necessary...as such isolation seems to be a natural transition period that may persist briefly before hybridization occurs OR before true physical isolation occurs..or both.
When mammals and birds and Cetaceans evolved culture it began to exert an interesting feedback on what formerly was a purely spatial separation induced pressure toward speciation....once animal brains got smart enough to *choose not to pay attention to spatial separation* all sorts of crossing events became possible and non speciation in this case of birds stands as a single snapshot in a dynamic that is at various states across flora and fauna.
So really what we have here is a refined look at how evolution proceeds, one that includes the nuance of cultural feedback induced separation with or without spatial isolation as a prerequisite state.
This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:
So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.
This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …
I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.
The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.
Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.
Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…
Permissions, fine grained versus management headache
The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform certain actions. Also, the…