Others

In retrospect, it seems obvious that we were conducting our searches for extraterrestrial life in completely the wrong way, and even then half-heartedly. But then, so many things are clear now that once seemed impossibly mysterious.

Consider the contradictions inherent to our pre-contact thinking. Simultaneously, we marveled at the uniqueness of our planet, and searched for ones just like it. Earth has far too much water for a world so close to the sun — our best guess was that it bad been deposited by comets. This thin envelope of water was just deep enough to give us oceans, just shallow enough to leave us with continents, while every other planet we could see was either an arid dust ball or else crushed under hundreds of miles of ice.

Our home planet has a moon nearly a quarter the size of the planet itself, a cosmic arrangement we could see nowhere else. This anomaly interacted with the first and gave us tides, repeatedly washing the borders of the continents with organic matter until finally some of it stayed there, first plants then animals and finally our species of crazy apes.

The presence of the organic matter was itself an insanely convoluted and unlikely tale. The core of our planet — warm enough to create volcanoes at the tectonic boundaries, cool enough that the plates themselves were relatively stable — fed energy and volatile chemicals through tiny fissures in rocks deep under the blanket of ocean. In these tiny channels, chance accumulations of chemicals formed and then multiplied, protected by a shell of rock until forced out into the cold depths.

After uncounted billions of iterations, the chemical compounds combined to form a shell around the core replicating body, and in a galactic eyeblink the oceans were filled with cells, then multiple-celled organisms, multiplying and diversifying into every possible shape, including monkeys clever enough to sit at keyboards and bang out books about how their own presence was so impossibly unlikely that there must have been an outside, intelligent force at work.

Our origins are so unbelievable that huge sections of the population literally refused to believe them. And yet, when we went searching for other life in universe, we pretended to keep an open mind, but what we were really looking for was more monkeys just like us. We were willing to accept perhaps a few extra limbs, a different skin colour, strange habits and languages. But we eliminated huge swathes of possible variation entirely — scale, temperature, pressure, gravity, speed of perception and communication. Futilely, we searched the cosmos for ourselves.

And the contradictions didn’t end there. If interstellar travel or even communication was possible, then the universe being so enormous and so old, it should already be happening: if there were aliens anywhere, they should be everywhere. In fact, we even had a name for it — Fermi’s paradox, summed up neatly as a question: “If they are out there, why aren’t they here yet?” Aware of the question, we posited dozens of answers, including the correct one — and yet we did nothing with it.

The solution to a big mystery is often the solution to another — puzzled by the shape of the universe and the retrograde motion of Mercury, we discovered the answer to both. And so it was with us. For centuries physics struggled to come up with our grand unifying theory, and when we finally did, it finally answered Fermi’s question as well.

Able at last to understand and perceive our own projection into twelve-dimensional space, we found it “crowded” — though the term is meaningless in that space. Travel and communication through our paltry four dimensions had always been impossible: intelligence is too far apart, in time and space, to communicate there. But in our new space our distances were easily, trivially bridged.

Twelve-space freed us from the boundaries that we had never even considered anyway — time and temperature, gravity and scale. They have no meaning. Instead, the deeper and harder problem confronted us: that of recognizing other intelligences, and having them recognize us.

The first intelligences we found in twelve-space were ourselves. Freed from time, every human who ever lived was simultaneously present, and immortal. We rediscovered ourselves not as the tiny, separate, fragile creatures we had believed ourselves to be in four-space. Those temporary protrusions are no more to be glorified or mourned than the scales of a fish when it brushes the surface of a pond. We are giant, simultaneously one and many, unified and legion, an endless branching tree of possibilities and personalities.

In four-space the patterns of our selves are faintly discernible as the connections of parents to children, to ancestors of the distant past down to the descendants in the indefinite future. But to think these patterns give any clue to the whole is like looking at the wrinkles on the skin of an elephant, noting the texture it has, and declaring oneself to understand not just the shape of the whole animal, but its entire biology.

Time has no meaning in twelve-space, but even to the creatures we now understood ourselves to be, with minds that stretch the length of the universe, from big bang to heat-death, the recognition of other intelligences presented a challenge. Forced to translate into four-dimensional terms, the others describe the addition of a new species into twelve-space like a baby opening its eyes, or learning to talk: the sights and sounds have always been there, but now there is slowly-dawning comprehension. What was previously inert, to be protected for its potential, is gradually becoming active, first merely absorbing, then actively listening, and finally participating.

Of course, the analogy breaks down because of the irrelevance of time in twelve-space. Once you are capable of perceiving it, every problem and solution that can ever exist is simultaneously accessible and active, attempted and solved and remembered all at once by every part of our beautiful, multi-faceted minds. But nevertheless, the pattern of how our awareness came into existence was a part of our selves, visible in twelve-space, like a long-healed belly button.

And so it is that I can speak, as the tail-end of a being that simultaneously fills the universe and shares it with an infinite number of other immortal intelligences of every possible form, of contact with “extraterrestrials” and the answer to Fermi’s paradox. They are out there, and they are here, and so are we, everywhere and every time simultaneously. Our earth is not a prison or a cradle: it is a bubble on the surface of a pond, its life as short and its fate as inconsequential.

And the universe is waiting for us to open our eyes.

from Seldo.Com Feed http://bit.ly/LsUOhB

2012 Presidential Election: the polls to watch

I am an obsessive follower of politics. With 189 days left until the US presidential election, I’m in full-on obsessive poll-watching mode.

As usual, you should ignore national polls. The important point is the electoral college. You can see a projected electoral map for 2012, and you can also create your own. My current pessimistic prediction has Barack Obama winning by just 3 electoral votes, hinging on a win in Virginia.

Virginia is one of the four battleground states that are going to matter in this election. The full set, and their current polls, are:

Obama won all four in 2008 but this is pretty much guaranteed not to happen this year.

While national polls are almost useless, it is worth keeping an eye on these three:

  • Obama’s job approval: is he doing a good job? This has been negative for most of Obama’s presidency, which is not great but not unusual either.
  • Obama’s favorability: do you like him? (Whether or not he’s doing a good job). Obama’s favorability is generally ahead of his job approval. Favorability has typically been a better predictor of electoral success.
  • Romney’s favorability: another key, because you’re unlikely to vote Obama out of office, even if you don’t like him, if you dislike the other guy more.

Romney’s favorability is currently negative, which is great news for Obama and terrible news for Romney.

from Seldo.Com Feed http://bit.ly/ITgosV

This is excellent.

Five big problems with Twitter’s UI

Okay Twitter, it’s time you stopped getting a free pass. You have fucked up your interface, and it’s time to fix it.

Before we get to the UI problems, let’s reiterate the bigger, older problem, captured just a second ago:

This was cute when you were tiny and still getting over early technical mistakes on the back-end, but you’re over that now, you’ve taken over a billion dollars in funding, you are basically CNN’s only news source at this point. You can’t be throwing 500s anymore, no matter how cute the whale is. But your problems go much deeper now: even when it renders, your actual user interface is significantly less useful and elegant. Allow me to rant briefly about a few issues. While I’m waiting for the whale to go away so I can take screencaps, here’s a shot of the old-old Twitter (via):

Problem 1: right-column layout

The new layout puts tweets down the right, and a mish-mash of useless junk down the left. I know why you did this: you needed to increase the amount of attention paid to promoted followers and trends, because that’s your business model. I don’t care. You are deliberately distracting your users from something they want to see with something they don’t care about. This is the wrong way to do advertising.

Problem 2: tweet composition

Can you tell me the difference between these two ways of composing a tweet? This one is accessible from the left nav:

This one comes up if you click the blue button in the top-right:

The answer is: there is none. They are totally different-looking ways of doing the same thing, both accessible from the top of the front page. Why would you confuse your users like that? If you think the top-right button is too hard to find, why is it there at all? If you think it’s useful because it stays visible as the page scrolls, why not make the easy-to-see compose box fixed? Instead you have this weird dual-interface solution that reeks of committees and compromise instead of the great, simple design that you started with.

Problem 3: tweet controls

The basic tweet layout is pretty much unchanged since the beginning:

The friendly “posted X minutes ago” has been replaced by the context-free “27m”, but that’s a tiny matter. On hover, as before, you get some tweet controls, plus the new “open” link:

And here the real trouble begins. This is what happens when you click “open”:

My payoff is that the controls jump to the bottom of the tweet for no clear reason, and I get a more exact timestamp. Is that worth a click? Then why is that link there at all? The answer is because if your tweet has more interactions, like retweets and favourites, you get those here too:

But that’s an explanation, not a reason. It would be quite simple to not bother having an “open” link unless there was something interesting to show. But instead we have this weird cruft in the name of consistency. Again, it’s a small thing, but all these little things are beginning to add up to a UI that isn’t cared about.

Problem 4: conversation view

If a tweet is part of a wider conversation, clicking “open” gives you a lot more context, like so:

Display of larger conversational context is a good idea. But there are two issues: first, the back-end implementation sucks. If I respond twice to your tweet before you reply, that second tweet is lost from the conversation. Sometimes you get the whole conversation, sometimes just the immediately preceding tweet. It’s inconsistent and confusing.

And the UI is also inconsistent and confusing: two of the tweets have short timestamps, one has a long. The “hide conversation” close the whole conversation, but uses the same icon as “reply” and is right next to it. In the top-right, where you’d expect the “close” button to be in any other context, there’s nothing but a timestamp, unless you hover, where you get this:

So now I have controls for this tweet, and also a “details” link which… closes the conversation, in total defiance of its label. Unless you right-click and open in a new tab, in which case you get the details page for a tweet. Why have a link that only does what it says if you right-click? Why can’t I get more details of this tweet inline?

Here’s how it should work: I’m looking at a list of tweets, and the bottom one is highlighted. If I want to close the list, there should be a close button in the top-right. If I want details about a tweet other than the last one, I should be able to click it. Is that so hard?

Incidentally, there is a close button for the conversation that’s correctly labelled. You get it if you hover over the final tweet:

…right where the “details” link is on the other tweets. And it does the same thing that the already-visible “hide conversation” link did anyway. What on earth is the point?

Problem 5: interactions

This one is so obvious I can’t believe it’s not been fixed already. This is the default view of the (poorly-named) “@connect” tab:

This view is clumsily mixing together two totally different use-cases. The first is @replies: these are frequent, personal, and demanding of your attention. They are high-value. The second is retweets and favourites: these do not require response (good, because the UI doesn’t let you respond anyway), and happen asynchronously: you don’t care when a particular retweet or favourite happened to any degree of precision — so why is it in a timeline? Not that Twitter actually tells you when it happened anyway, since the UI batches up reponses:

It’s not like there’s not a great, usable UI for handling interactions that already exists to model from: Favstar.fm nailed it years ago. Show tweets in the order they happened, batch up all responses. It’s not hard.

And as another tiny little thing: if the “Mentions” link lets you filter down to only @replies, why is there no equivalent “responses” link that lets you filter down to only retweets and favourites?

TL;DR

The New New Twitter has dozens of small, irritating design choices and UI inconsistencies. None of them by themselves is worth a whole post, but together they add up to enough brokenness to complain about. I’ve tried to keep things constructive by suggesting how they should look instead.

The new look has been out for over a month now and there’s been no sign of iteration to fix these things. We wouldn’t put up with this crap from Facebook. It’s time to fix it.


P.S. Dear commenters, before you immediately point out the many, many UI flaws in this blog, I reiterate that Twitter has a billion dollars, while I maintain this blog in my very rare spare time. I expect more from them, and so should you.



from Seldo.Com Feed http://bit.ly/zacyKC