The demise of the personal technical blog

No, it's not about mine, although this blog has had its ups and down. What I want to talk about is the list of blogs I am following and how it (d)evolved.

When I was an enthusiastic beginner in software development I was hunting for interesting blogs that would give me valuable insights into the minds of good developers, the quirks of frameworks, the hidden tools and processes that would make my life better. I was adding blog after blog to my RSS list. Later on, I kind of stopped. I had things to do, work to be done and unfortunately went through some jobs that were not conducive to learning. Perhaps seeing myself as an expert also hindered enthusiasm in learning (note to self: don't do that!). The obsolescence of the tool I was using to read RSS with and the death of Google Reader also did not help. So recently I just went back to that list of blogs and started organizing it with a new tool. I use Feedly now, in case you were wondering.

Today I had an epiphany. I have over 150 blogs that I am "following", 100 of which are software related, yet only very few of them are actually spewing content anymore. In my three year hiatus from blog reading most of the technical blogs just ... stopped. Some of them just plain vanished, complete with content that I had linked to in my own articles. At that time I was considering blogs as permanent as you can get. I mean people just write stuff for the heck of it, so others can read and learn. There would be no reason for any of this to disappear - there are still pages from 1990 active on the Internet, for crying out loud! So what happened?

One theory is that blogs were created as representations of a person's evolution. For example you are a good WPF programmer and you create something like Dr. WPF's blog. When you stop doing WPF (because Microsoft dropped the ball with it!) you stop writing. Perhaps the author still blogs in other places, other blogs that are thematic, I don't know. Another theory is that people just blog at a certain stage in their life; it's like a quarter-life crisis. When they mature, people stop blogging (which says something...). Maybe the social media explosion pushed people away from personalized platforms and they do all their publishing on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium and so on. As the IT industry moves at an ever increasing pace, the blogs may turn into antiquated relics that are obsolete by the time several posts have been published.

I feel sad either way. When I started blogging, people would come to me for help. After all I started the site years before StackOverflow arrived on the scene. I would write about programming, books, anime, life, personal ideas, jokes, space, science, rants, whatever. It happened several times that I was looking for a solution to a problem and found myself explaining it in an older post. People still praise some posts because they refer technology that is maybe a decade old. Others for getting the full picture on how I got to the end result. So for all these vanishing blogs, I feel a sense of loss for all the knowledge that was lost, for all the voices that turned silent.

I know that as a blog dies ten others appear, but there is no sense of origin anymore, no chronological timeline of the evolution of the person writing. I can even go down the "they are not making them like they used to" road. For me a blog would have functioned as a sort of resumé of someones's work. If I liked an article, I would look at others, maybe subscribe. This way I would be connected not with a concept, but with a person: as they grew, I grew. And SEO be damned, I don't care people don't discover my blog anymore because Google can't make up its mind on what I am actually writing about. When people do come, they see me, not just disparate out of context solutions to their 5 minute problems.

So I wrote this article to express my sorrow. I guess that I miss my friends, even if they never knew me.

Read More

The Emperor's Soul, by Brandon Sanderson

The Emperor's Soul is set in the same world as Elantris, but for all intents and purposes it is a standalone story. It's not a full size book, but it's a bit longer than a short story. In it we find a type of magic called Forging, by which someone can carve and use a complicated seal to change the history of an object or, indeed, a soul. The forging needs to be very precise and as close as possible to the actual history of the target, otherwise the magic doesn't "stick". So what must a brilliant forger do in order to do the forbidden soul forging? They must know their target so intimately that they can't ultimately hurt them.
An intriguing idea, yet Brandon Sanderson does what he does best and focuses on the characters, while the story itself reveals the underlying motivation of each and how it affects the final outcome. The descriptions are minimal and the ending is optimistic and personal as Sanderson often likes his finales.
Since the story is short and I had no trouble reading it in a single evening, it is almost a pity not to read it, even if in itself is just a tiny "what if" tale and offers nothing spectacular.

Read More

Calamity (Reckoners #3), by Brandon Sanderson

I've read the book in a day. Just like the other two in the series (Steelheart and Firefight), I was caught up in the rhythm of the characters and the overwhelming positivity of the protagonist. Perhaps strange, I kind of missed descriptions in this one, as both locations and characters were left to the imagination and everything was action and dialogue.

Brandon Sanderson ends (why!!?? Whyy?!!?) the Reckoners series with this third book called Calamity. You absolutely have to read the other two books to understand anything about it. In fact, Reckoners feels more like a single story released in three installments than a true trilogy. In it, the team has to reckon (heh heh heh) with their leader going rogue and have a decision to make: either bring him back or kill him. All this while fighting off various Epics in different stages of madness.

I can't really say anything about the story without spoiling the hell out of it. I loved the first two books and I loved this one. Indeed, I have yet to find a Brandon Sanderson book that I don't like. If you are into superhero stories, the Reckoners series has a refreshingly original plot, a wonderful main character and true debate about what heroism really is. I recommend it highly!

Read More

An elegant alternative to a for 1..n when you don't actually need the value

Some times you need to repeat a code block a number of times and the solution is often a for block.

for (var i=0; i<n; i++)...

This is a complex line to write and most importantly obscures the intent of the code. Wouldn't it be better to have some kind of construct that says "repeat N times" and be intuitively easy to understand? Well there is one:

while (n-->0) ...

No, it isn't some C# construct that you have not heard of before, it's a while loop that checks on the value of n, then decrements it. But it looks great! It almost reads as "while n moves to 0". I liked it and I thought I should share.

Read More

The Mirror Thief, by Martin Seay

The Mirror Thief is a really interesting book. It is well written, original in ideas and Martin Seay has his own unique writing style. It is also a very deceptive book, always changing shape, misleading the reader over what he is actually reading.

The book starts in Vegas, with a black former military policeman named Curtis arriving in search of a certain Stanley, in order to give him a message from a friend. The story feels like a detective-noir, but immediately there are things that just don't belong. The apparent mystical talents of Stanley, the very detailed descriptions of the surroundings, using rarely met but very specific words. At the time I thought I was going to read some sort of mystical noir thing akin to Cast a Deadly Spell.

But then the plot switches to the story of Stanley when he was a kid, hustling people on the street and doing various other bad things, his only anchor a book called The Mirror Thief, a poetry book that describes the adventures of a certain Vettor Crivano in Venice at the end of the 16^th century. While he doesn't really understand what it is about, he feels that the unnaturally meandering book hides some sort of universal secret. As a reader, you start to doubt what you have read until now. After all, aren't you reading a confusing meandering book with a lot of unexplainable details? Stanley has traversed the United States in order to find the author of the book and ask him to reveal the mystical secret that would give him the power he craves.

And just when you think you figured it out, the book reveals a third story, that of Crivano himself, but not in poetry and apparently unrelated to the book about him. While he is an alchemist and physician, his best skill appears to be fighting, and he only uses it effectively at the end. All main characters: Curtis, Stanley and Crivano feel absurdly human and flawed. Curtis carries a gun everywhere and he doesn't get to use it once, while being disarmed multiple times. He doesn't get what's going on up until the very end. Crivano is also deceived several times, another pawn in the big game of life. Paradoxically Stanley is the one most in control of his life, mostly by rejecting everything society considers normal or even moral and choosing his every step.

To me, the book was most of all about perception. The reader is confusedly pinballed from perspective to perspective, even with each of them painstakingly detailed. While reading the book you learn new words, old words, history of three different times and places and intimately get to know each character. When you get tricked, you are just following characters that get tricked, disappointed or set up themselves. The three stories are really completely unrelated, at most red herrings when mentioned in the others, and offer little closure. It is all about understanding there are other ways of looking at the world.

Bottom line: Martin Seay is often accosted by readers begging for explanations of what they have read. You cannot read the book and not feel it is a good book, but actually enjoying it is a different thing altogether. At the end you start thinking about the book, about the world, about yourself, wondering if you didn't just read the whole thing wrong and whether maybe you should start over.

Other resources:

• Martin Seay’s The Mirror Thief Is about Mirrors and Cities and Cities in Mirrors
• Martin Seay’s ‘The Mirror Thief’ as Explained by Martin Seay
• Peter Chelsom to Direct Adaptation of ‘The Mirror Thief’

Read More

Exciting position in a random game of chess

I have been playing a little with the Houdini chess engine and Chess Arena. I limit the ELO of the engine to a set value and then I try to beat it. It's not like playing a human being, but saves me the humiliation of being totally thrashed by another person :) Plus I didn't have Internet. In this case the ELO was set to 1400.

One of the games I played turned out to be extremely interesting (and short). Black tried the Elephant Gambit, to which I replied clumsily, but then it made two horrible mistakes and I saw the correct continuation. What I thought was really interesting is how the computer reacted. In what I thought would lead to some sort of piece advantage after a king and rook fork turned out to be a mating situation. The only solution for the computer was to sacrifice the queen and trying to save her would have resulted in mates or even worse situations.
I will publish the PGN here, so you can explore the variations, but before that I want to point out another greatly interesting move. As the Black queen attempts to escape, the next move is a king-queen-rook fork, yet after the king moves White does not capture the queen but does a seemingly random move: 12. Qd4. Why is that? I leave you to check it out for yourselves!

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 {The Elephant Gambit} 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4.
d4 dxe4 5. Nc3 Bb4 6.
Bd2 Qf5 {A really bad move giving a 3 point advantage to
White.} 7. Nd5 Bd6 8. c3 {My turn for a bad move,
anything went there, Bc4, g4, but I did this, going back to 1 pawn
advantage.} Bxe5 9. dxe5 Qxe5 {Disastrous move, but interesting. Check out the continuations.} (9.
.. Qd7 {This would have been the only decent move.}) 10. Bf4 Qxf4 {Amazingly, the only move here is to sacrifice the
queen for either bishop or knight. Attempts to save the queen lead to
mate!} (10. .. Qf5 {queen attempts to escape.} 11. Nxc7+ {leads to mate in
1. no matter when the king goes.} Kf8 (11. .. Ke7 12. Qd6#) 12. Qd8#) (10.
.. Qe6 {queen attempts to live just a bit longer.} 11. Nxc7+ {Chessgasm!
and Black's pain is only beginning.} Ke7 12. Qd4 {This is the most
interesting move here and by far the best by Houdini's calculations.} Nf6
(12. .. Nc6 13. Qc5+ Kd8 14. O-O-O+ Nd4 15. Rxd4+ Bd7 16. Qf8+ Qe8 17.
Qxe8#) (12. .. Qc6 13. Bb5 Qf6 14. Qb4+ Kd8 15. Qf8#) (12. .. Qf6 13. Qc5+
Kd7 14. O-O-O+ Qd4 15. Rxd4#) 13. Qc5+ Kd8 14. Nxe6+ Bxe6 15. Qc7+ Ke8 16.
Qxb7 Bd5 17. Qc8+ Ke7 18. Qxh8) 11. Nxf4 Nc6 {White wins
easily from +11 points} 1-0

Read More

Gamification is a trap word. It is only inversely connected to games.

My mind has been wandering around the concept of gamification for a few weeks now. In short, it's the idea of turning a task into a game to increase motivation towards completing it. And while there is no doubt that it works - just check all the stupid games that people play obsessively in order to gain some useless points - it was a day in the park that made it clear how wrong the term is in connecting point systems to games.



I was walking with some friends and I saw two kids playing. One was shooting a ball with his feet and the other was riding a bicycle. The purpose of their ad-hoc game was for the guy with the ball to hit the kid on the bike. They were going at it again and again, squealing in joy, and it hit me: they invented a game. And while all games have a goal, not all of them require points. Moreover, the important thing is not the points themselves, but who controls the point system. That was my epiphany: they invented their own game, with its own goal and point system, but they were controlling the way points were awarded and ultimately how much they mattered. The purpose of the game was actually to challenge the players, to gently explore their limitations and try to push boundaries a little bit further out. It wasn't about losing or winning, it was about learning and becoming.

In fact, another word for point system is currency. We all know how money relates to motivation and happiness, so how come we got conned into believing that turning something into a game means showing flashy animations filled with positive emotion that award you arbitrary sums of arbitrary types of points? I've tried some of these things myself. It feels great at times to go up the (arbitrary) ranks or levels or whatever, while golden chests and diamonds and untold riches are given to me. But soon enough the feeling of emptiness overcomes the fictional rewards. I am not challenging myself, instead I am doing something repetitive and boring. That and the fact that most of these games are traps to make you spend actual cash or more valuable currency to buy theirs. You see, the game of the developers is getting more money. And they call it working, not playing.

I was reading this book today and in it a character says that money is the greatest con: it is only good for making more money. Anything that can be bought can be stolen. And it made a lot of sense to me. When you play gamified platforms like the ones I am describing, the goal of the game quickly changes in your mind. You start to ignore pointless (pardon the pun) details, like storyline, character development, dialogues, the rush of becoming better at something, the skills one acquires, even the fun of playing. Instead you start chasing stars, credits, points, jewels, levels, etc. You can then transfer those points, maybe convert them into something or getting more by converting money into them. How about going around and tricking other players to give you their points? And suddenly, you are playing a different game, the one called work. Nobody can steal the skills you acquire from you, but they can always steal your title or your badge or your trophy or the money you made.

What I am saying is that games have a goal that defines them. Turning that goal into a metric irrevocably perverts the game. Even sports like football, that start off as a way of proving your team is better than the other team and incidentally improving your physical fitness, turn into ugly deformed versions of themselves where the bottom line is getting money from distribution rights, where goals can be bought or stolen by influencing a referee, for example.

I remember this funny story about a porn game that had a very educational goal: make girls reach orgasm. In order to translate this into a computer program, the developers had several measurements of pleasure - indicated in the right side of the screen as colored bars - which all had to go over a threshold in order to make the woman cum. What do you think happened? Players ignored the moaning image of a naked female and instead focused solely on the bars. Focus on the metric and you ignore the actual goal.

To summarize: a game requires of one to define their limits, acknowledge them, then try to break them. While measuring is an important part of defining limits, the point is in breaking them, not in acquiring tokens that somehow prove it to other people. If you want to "gamify" work, then the answer is to do your tasks better and harder and to do it for yourself, because you like who you become. When you do it in order to make more money, that's work, and to win that game you only need to trick your employers or your customers that you are doing what is required. And it's only play when you enjoy who you are when doing it.

As an aside, I know people that are treating making money like a game. For them making more and more money is a good thing, it challenges them, it makes them feel good about themselves. They can be OK people that sometimes just screw you over if they feel the goal of their game is achieved better by it. These people never gamified work, they were playing a game from the very start. They love doing it.

Stay true to the goal! That is the game.

Read More