Why Can't They See?

My mom sent along the photo at right as one in a collection of absurdities.  It nicely illustrates the paradox that many before me have pointed out: if psychics can predict the future, then why can't they (a) forsee circumstances such as the one at right, (b) get rich by forseeing stock price movements or real estate values, (c) avoid accidental trauma themselves or their loved ones, (d) etc., etc.?

The few times in investigational writings when I've seen such questions raised, the replies of the psychics are such obvious claptrap that one would think nobody would buy their story.  Yet billions of people around the world persist in believing this sort of magical thinking, in the face of such abundant contrary evidence.  Why can't they see the truth in front of their faces?

The Hell You Say...

Via my mom:

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for. The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.

Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.

Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes. When she is finished the devil informs her that the cost is 6 million dollars, so she writes him a check.

Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is $5.00.

When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA so cheaply.

The devil smiles and replies: "Since Obama took over, the country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."

Depending on your frame of mind when you read this, it can be either comic or tragic...

Lessons Learned from 13 Failed Software Ventures...

Often there's more to learn from failure than from success.  I've learned more than many have ...

Attitude in Programming...

Jonathan Edwards has an interesting post about the importance – the primacy, really – of attitude in programming.  The basic message is that when there's a choice between simple, readily digestible way to do something and a more complex but also more elegant or beautiful (to a sophisticated or accomplished programmer), then choose the simple way every time.  Making those choices for the simple means the overall piece of software will be less complex, more bug-free, more easily modified, etc. 

I couldn't agree more, but I don't the picture is quite as clear as he paints it (and I suspect Edwards would agree).  For example, one of the tensions in making such choices lies with deciding exactly what is simple and clear.  I had an experience a couple of years ago that illustrates this.  I'd written a small piece of code (in Java) that made use of the exclusive-or operator (“^”).  To me, that was obvious, simple, and clear – and obviously simpler than the alternative.  But my colleagues disagreed, because they didn't know that operator.  To them, writing (a && !b) || (!a && b) was simpler and clearer than a ^ b (where a and b are boolean values) which was a huge surprise for me!  I eventually settled on the code a != b, which satisfied both of us.  The point is that it's not always easy to decide exactly what constitutes simple and digestible – but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be your goal...

Quote of the Day...

From an excellent piece by Peggy Noonan, who seems to be seeing clearly once again:

But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.