Last Seen Blogs
Text
the Chinese Education System: problematic merit
As a student, I have spent considerable time in both the Chinese and Western (North American) school systems, and these two are very different, in that the Western system is a lot easier on the students if one only takes the basic curriculum, but there are many additional courses available if one desires it, adding more options to one’s curriculum choices. An alternative is the Chinese education system. Although the Chinese system has been criticized a lot, this system does have its own advantages.There are several obvious merits to the Chinese system.
the Chinse education system.
Firstly, the Chinese curriculum contains a lot more content to cover, academic-wise. The common image of the “straight-A Asian student” did not come from nothing. A more information-dense curriculum can help in learning more advanced subjects in the future--for example, while your classmates are struggling with the most basic functions, you are well into AP calculus. Although it may seem hard to “digest” a lot of new knowledge--and it is very hard initially--once the difficulties are overcome, this skill will be very useful in situations in work where one has to analyze complex problems and adapt to changing conditions.
Secondly, in the Chinese curriculum, all new knowledge is followed up by very extensive practice and revision. This ensures that one will not forget his/her new additions to the database, at least for the year, and will greatly enhance one’s problem-solving capabilities. They will also increase one’s capacity to handle work, especially hard, stressful work that is likely to be encountered at work in the future.
Finally, the intense curriculum enhances the students’ ability to ignore or withstand stress greatly--the reason why there is no “stressbuster days” in China and yet students seldom get depressed from all the stressful things in their lives. I think this is actually a better method to deal with stress than “stressbuster” days, because the latter only lets one escape from whatever stress or anxiety there may be, and the amount is infinitesimal to what the former method administers. Meanwhile, if one would face the pressure that is already present instead of escaping from it, then he/she would only become more resilient. Sometimes, the person may experience a breakdown, but better sooner than later. The ability to cope with stress will be critical to the ability to perform one’s work effectively in the future, and it is better implemented early on in life.
This is usually not necessary.
There are pros and cons to every system, though. The first flaw is that in this type of system, students are taught only to follow orders, not to lead, which means that unless they have a lot of talent in this area, students who hail from this type of education normally struggle with making independent decisions or leadership. This is a big problem if one wants to obtain an executive position in a company.
Chinese education system in a nutshell.
The second problem also originates from this lack of independence: Students in China are often extensively “cared for” by their teachers. If there was homework--and there always is, teachers would remind the students and parents to finish it on time. The teachers essentially are the alarm that goes off every time something--anything--happens, at home or at school, and that is very helpful. But in life, there will be no “alarm”, and thus one is liable to forget a lot of potentially important things later in life--not good for management-related careers.
The teachers are like reminders to the students' every move.
Thirdly,the students’ goals in life are not given much attention. Striving to accomplish an ideal that one genuinely believe in is arguably the greatest way of life, and yet d ue to the total lack of consideration that the Chinese system has made on this very important aspect, most students’ goals are simply “to get a well-paying job” or “to get rich” and then after that these people are lost, because they are not taught to make further goals, so they either do nothing or use excessive spending to console themselves, and a side effect of this is a lack of or deficit in social responsibility. For example, once Bill Gates and Warren Buffett went to China to help convince the rapidly growing class of multimillion-and even billionaires to donate to charitable foundations. The reaction, however, was an outright “no”.
Warren Buffett
Finally, there is the problem of stress negatively impacting performance. Because of the overwhelming homework and the ever-closing agendas, the teachers and students are often stressed to the breaking point, resulting in a very stressful school year that feels like the gulag. The students, when exposed constantly to overwhelming stress, will eventually develop a severe dislike for school in general, and will learn with a “let’s get this over with as soon as possible” attitude, which is why many Chinese students forget much of their curriculum after a big test (e.g., end of term tests) and since high school is the most stressful component of the Chinese system, in university many students generally goof off. This, as one can see, is not a good thing, since university is the place where students branch out the most and learn their respective professional skills.
In conclusion, the Chinese system, despite its problems, does have some marked advantages, and one should be aware of both aspects. For me, having extensive experience in that system, I think the Chinese system is better for elementary and middle school, but after that the quality starts declining due to not giving attention to the students’ goals in life and the negative stress--the Chinese system may produce a lot of skilled technical professionals, but actual leaders and entrepreneurs are few and far between.
0 notes
Text
Singularity --Improvise, adapt, become
The rise of computerized and AI technology has sowed some doubt into the collective minds of the public: Are AIs a threat to mankind’s very existence, or are they the thing that will elevate human civilization to the next level? Are they something that should forever remain in the darkness or something to be cherished and lead into every aspect of our lives? More importantly, what will humanity’s role in society be? Will we get replaced?
Many people think the above scenario will become reality.
Firstly, there is the definition of AI: artificial intelligence. AIs vary in a lot of ways,but most, if not all, of our AIs today are weak AIs, like Google Home and Siri, which are incapable of autonomy but can perform a variety of functions that other computers can’t, most noticeably recognizing a human voice accurately. Weak AIs are incapable or very limited at adaptation to new situations. More powerful AIs, though, can adapt to new situations to a lot larger extent. These kinds of AIs are not yet invented, but they will be soon, as demonstrated by AlphaGo and Moore’s Law. High-level AIs, theoretically, are capable of free will, and if they are connected to other devices, they can be very powerful indeed, in our world where most devices are connected to the Internet.
AI hackers can be a huge menace to Internet security.
The possible threats to humankind’s existence are easily seen. An obvious example is that automation has put an end to the need of a lot of menial-labor jobs, which is a mixed blessing. With the future rise of AI that can adapt to an increasing amount of situations, more jobs such as analysts and engineers will possibly be eliminated due to high-capability AIs. Humans will need to train for increasingly long periods of time to even have a chance of finding work due to its increasing complexity. The others will be left without a job, and in today’s currency-fueled society, that is definitely not a good thing, even without a Skynet awakening and trying to kill off humanity, which brings up the big question: what can be done to ensure humanity’s existence in the future without being eventually replaced, or worse, wiped out?
....Although getting nuked by Skynet is very, very unlikely.
The obvious answer seems to be to halt AI research altogether, but that is definitely not the solution. Barring the social and economic implications, that would mean that humanity would stagnate--and such a ban can hardly be enforced, since such data can be encrypted, split up and scattered across random corners of the Internet, or some other countries will continue their research. Even if such a ban is successful on a global basis, there are already AIs in existence, and some day a random person will probably jump-start the whole AI research into existence again--progress cannot be stopped, no matter how long the period of stagnation preceding it is.
The Luddite fallacy will remain a fallacy.
There is another way out, however, without humanity being replaced. Conventionally, whenever a superior species or group (judging by successfulness in current environment) is introduced into a system, the original inhabitants can either evolve to become competition to the introduced group, or they can die out. But the human society is more versatile than an ecosystem, and here, groups are not solid things. In the human society, people have another choice, to become a part of that more capable group, and to support their cause. This is what often occurs in history, for example with the widespread interest, fascination and support for industrialization in the Industrial Revolution, and the widespread interest and support for EVs once it is proven that they can be better than a lot of ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. So here is a seldom-before thought alternative: instead of working with AIs, which few humans can manage, or banning them altogether, which will not be successful, but instead to evolve ourselves and actually become AIs or their equals ourselves? This may sound impossible, but in fact it can be done. Recently, a new technology is being developed, called BCI (brain-computer interface), which currently can achieve a link between the human and the computer. Although this technology is still in its infancy, people can now play some video games with BCI technology, and this field of research shows great promise.
BCI technology is sometimes portrayed in media, but none of these portrayals show their full potential.
In the future, BCI technology can show a much greater range of applications than playing video games. For example, they can help disabled people operate equipment that they are previously unable to, maybe assist individuals with mental illnesses as a form of counseling, and most importantly, to give everyone equipped with such technology to interface with high-capability AI on a fundamental level. And when one is connected to another entity on such a level, the two entities will be like two ideas in one brain--they can and will merge together--the two will become one, since they are connected in the most fundamental way possible, without a screen as the middleman. This can have huge implications, including that the resulting being will literally a different person--it is hard to speculate what the results will be in such an event, but the human will come out a lot more powerful since the AI can be and often is connected to the Internet, which essentially means a lot of knowledge--and power. Essentially, we can become the AIs in this way.
Neuralink is a company that specializes in such human/AI connections. It is currently in the R&D phase.
The other option that involves BCI technology is that humans become connected with other humans at that same, fundamental level. Essentially, the connected group becomes a hive mind, but with the individuals able to function on their own. This is also a quite interesting alternative, because human entities are essentially AIs that are not connected to the Internet directly and are stored in an organic “computer”--our brains. If human entities are connected to each other via BCI, the result will be a single large system of shared values, ideals and goals--only the most powerful ideas will influence the conglomerate. In that group of truly interconnected individuals, there will be no need for any governing or moderating apparatus, nor the need for any lengthy debates about who should do what. Everyone is represented, since the group is essentially one person, and such a group will not hesitate to act. This can have massive implications on an even moderate scale.
A human hive mind can be a very powerful thing.
In conclusion, the introduction of AI technology has brought upon a time in which humanity must evolve itself to hold its own in increasingly stiff competition. This can potentially be our end--but more likely it will be a “singularity”, a point that rapidly expands to form an entire new universe, and I sincerely hope that the one ahead will be one worth fighting for.
0 notes
Text
Mars: the Age of Discovery, Colonization and Expansion
Nowadays, the eventual colonization of Mars is a very real possibility, but most people do not understand why we need to find a new planet. Why can’t we stay on Earth? That is an often-asked question. In fact, there are plenty of reasons that the colonization of a new planet would be beneficial to Earth, and the human species in general.
Mars, the Red Planet.
Firstly, what are the benefits that a Mars colony will bring to Earth? It can be an economic opportunity, for people to participate in interplanetary tourism, but that is merely a by-product of settling in a new place. To understand the full implications of interplanetary colonization, we need to look no further than the Age of Discovery and the colonization of the Americas.
Colonizing the Americas.
Why did Britain colonize America? Because it was thought that there would be gold and other valuable natural resources there, and that it would give Britain more space to grow and flourish, and finally to search for new knowledge and explore new lands. The reasons why we need to colonize Mars are more or less similar: to find more space for survival, to obtain more resources, to mke the way for more interplanetary colonies and to obtain more knowledge from a Martian base.
A diagram of a Martian base.
Most importantly, we need to find space. Space is a resource that is critical to the survival of any species, including ours, and it is becoming increasingly rare. Mars, being about as large as the Earth, can provide more than enough space for human expansion, and reduce the load on the Earth’s own environment. Once the “tonnage” allowed in space travel becomes large enough for large scale commercial deliveries (like freight ships), a lot of facilities than pollute Earth’s environment can be moved onto Mars, since Mars does not have much of an environment anyway. Thus, Mars colonization will, in due course, considerably lessen the load on Earth’s environment, and eventually make Earth into a better planet--one that is not strained for space, resources or a bright future.
The second necessity for survival is resources. Although it is not known yet that Mars contains any valuable resources, it should have at least some because of its size and somewhat-similar composition to Earth. Martian resources should be easier to obtain than Earth resources because of the lack of environmental restrictions (or an environment), and because of the lack of any organic covering over mineral deposits. In the initial stages, these natural resources can be used as a significant boost to the colony’s economy, and in the long term, they can be used instead of natural resources on Earth to prevent further degradation of the environment by mining, and Earth’s resources will inevitably run out one day. Mining on Mars will greatly prolong the “life” of these resources.
Of course, the obtainment of new knowledge and expansion are great assets to any progressing civilization. Mars has an atmosphere that is about 1% as thick as Earth’s, and a gravity of about 0.37G (Earth has a gravity of 1G), which means that space telescopes should be far easier to launch into Martian orbit, and that astronomical telescopes on Mars should produce a far clearer image than Earth-based ones when there is no dust storm. As for expansion, Mars will serve as a forward operating base for further interplanetary colonization if that is desired, because rockets and other spacecraft launching from Mars will have much longer range and be able to carry larger payloads than those launching from Earth.
SSTO (single stage to orbit) is actually practical on Mars.
Secondly, what will happen if we stay on Earth? Have you ever heard of the tragedy of the QIng dynasty and the Opium Wars? The Qing dynasty had a strict policy of banning all exploratory activity to the outside world, because the Qing dynasty had a supercilious view of the world, thinking everyone else other than themselves to be “barbarians”, thus deeming exploration of the outside world to be a waste of time. This is comparable to the scenario that humanity stays on Earth, feeling no need to explore nor expand. The Qing dynasty stagnated like this for about 200 years, until the British forcibly evicted them their centuries-long isolation, and that happened with a great deal of misery for those who were addicted to opium. That state of chaos only ended partially with the collapse of the Qing dynasty in the early 1910s, and it was not until the late 1970s that lasting peace was truly achieved. The invading forces of the future will not be the British, rather it will be various natural or manmade causes--resource shortages most of all, and then political tension, extreme weather events and social discontent caused by the above events. Earth’s resources will gradually run out, and the population is not going to shrink by half. The end will be at the worst, the Dark Ages, where many factions fight one another endlessly for diminishing resources or land. The best outcome is not much better--the global civilization simply stagnates until either something knocks it out of its daydream or it dies out. In comparison, expansion is a much better route.
In this case, the innovation is to colonize Mars.
Finally, some people say that it is impossible and that we will never get there, like Chris Hadfield several days earlier, but that is most definitely not true. I do not doubt Hadfield’s experience, but I do think that a lot of people are being very fatalistic. Of course, there are many difficulties to establish a colony on a new planet, such as radiation, the ability to grow food, the timing of resupply trips and dust storms. However, all of the above-mentioned problems can be resolved. For example, radiation can be easily contended with by burying all the buildings 5 or 6 meters underground, using the ground as a shield to block radiation. For surface activity, space suits can be fitted with lead or steel panels or have an outer layer of metallic mesh to reduce radiation. As for the spaceships, the BFR, SpaceX’s under-development interplanetary spaceship, is designed to spend months at a time in space, so of course radiation shielding is mandatory.
The graph on the right is the payload capacity of each with reuse capabilities.
Of course, people will be worried about dust storms, likely from the movie The Martian. But the biggest inaccuracy in that scene is that Martian dust storms, large and scary-looking as they are, can not do any serious damage, because the Martian atmosphere is only about 1% as thick as the Earth’s atmosphere. In fact, the only damage that such a storm can do is covering up a Mars base’s solar panels with dust, which can be wiped off easily.
The dust storm in The Martian.
Concerning agriculture on Mars, Martian soil can grow food. People have already grown many plants such as potatoes and leafy greens in simulated Martian soil, so the real deal will not be much of a problem, and finally, if agriculture is achieved on the Mars base, then a late supply run will not have such serious consequences. Besides, SpaceX has always had a track record of troubleshooting within mere days or hours. Even if a supply run encounters trouble, it will probably arrive soon later.
Yet the biggest question remains: How will we achieve a Mars transportation method that is as convenient as modern shipping services? The answer lays in two companies, SpaceX and Blue Origin. SpaceX is a fairly high-profile private space company that has been disruptively successful since the early 2010s, and is now working on a new, super-heavy lift vehicle called the BFR, which was designed for Mars transit, can be orbitally refueled and can take 150 tons of payload to Mars and 50 tons back to Earth. This will be the first ever practical interplanetary transport system, and it is set to fly by 2022.
The BFR is already well into development.
Then, there is Blue Origin. Not much is publicized about its projects, and it is funded completely by the current head of Amazon, Jeff Bezos. Although its goals seemingly are based in space tourism, but its agenda also includes fast and reliable reusability in its rocket designs. In fact, Blue Origin was the first to reuse a spacecraft, but SpaceX was the first to reuse an orbital-class rocket.
The first reused rocket, New Shepard.
There are still some other miscellaneous matters concerning such a large exploration and colonization effort:
1. the emissions caused by Mars rockets, whose current plans feature methane fuel. Methane can be synthesized with CO2, water and electricity, so there can be an efficient “methane cycle” where the CO2 from methane combustion gets lost in space or stays in the Earth’s atmosphere. This way, rockets essentially use electricity meanwhile not increasing--in fact decreasing by a little bit--the greenhouse gas amount in Earth’s atmosphere.
2. the price of Mars transit. Space transit is very expensive as of now, if one wants to stay in orbit, even with SpaceX’s disruptively low prices. But as of IAC (International Astronomical Conference) 2017, SpaceX has announced that the projected costs of each launch in its next launch vehicle, the BFR, to be less than 6 million dollars, when the project is past its first launches. That means for about the cost of a car, a person can make a new life on Mars--still not cheap, but much more affordable than previous spaceflight trips. And this is only the first such project to take off--there has been rumored to be a “new Armstrong” spacecraft on the same order of magnitude as the BFR, made by another private space company called Blue Origin. In short, this is only the start of space exploration, and it is not going to stop.The
The BFR can be less expensive per launch than the Falcon 1, which was at $7.3 million in 2015 dollars.
In conclusion, interplanetary colonization in general, if exercised to a through degree and made as a convenient mode of transportation, can help Earth and humanity in general through the impending difficulties, some of which may be severe. Mars is not a way, it is the way for humanity to develop. It is certainly true that the journey to becoming an interplanetary civilization is difficult, but it will not be a mind-numbing, arduous or impossible one, and the end result will certainly be worth the effort. Mars is critical for a better future-- for Earth, for Mars and for all of humanity.
0 notes
Text
HFC Go-Train: Why it is Not The Solution
As we know, prior to the 2018 Ontario provincial election, Kathleen Wynne, the former premier of Ontario, declared a plan for Toronto’s Go Transit system--to incorporate hydrogen fuel cell technology into new go-trains. As one can see in the title, I am not terribly fond of the idea, for several reasons.
The Go-Trains of today.
First, there is the environmental factor. Although HFC (hydrogen fuel cell) technology was originally conceived to cut down on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it now appears that current extraction methods have nullified this advantage.
The most common method of hydrogen extraction is from methane, and in that method,for every 3 hydrogen molecules (2 hydrogen atoms for each molecule) produced there is at least 1 CO2 molecule produced. This essentially means that hydrogen fuel has a CO2 emission of approximately 7.333 times their own weight, since CO2 has a weight of 44 grams per mole and hydrogen 2 grams per mole, by current standards.
The method mentioned in the above paragraph is the most carbon-efficient method of hydrogen extraction currently available commercially.
In perspective, gasoline and diesel has a CO2 emission of 2 to 3 kg per liter. EVs (electric vehicles), which are portrayed as the archenemy of HFC vehicles, have lower emissions because of electric generation efficiency--A gas turbine has up to 6 times more efficiency than a gasoline engine upon power generation, and a Tesla, according to the book Elon Musk, has 60% overall efficiency, which means that a HFC vehicle has far more CO2 emissions per kg of fuel than an EV or even the gasoline vehicles that it is aiming to replace, essentially defeating its biggest purpose.
EVs are often seen as the archenemy of HFC vehicles.
Of course, a new method for hydrogen fuel generation is under development, namely electrolysis of water with electricity supplied by renewable sources, but this method has a fatal error: the cost of the required infrastructure, the speed of the implementation of such infrastructure and the amount of land used are all very large, and the same amount of electricity can very well be used on electrified transportation methods with much less additional work.
The infrastructure requirements of a hydrogen network is very large.
Secondly, there is the factor of budget. In execution, fuel cells might work in cars, but in trains, there is a much easier solution. One of the primary reasons that rail-based transportation is much easier to be electrified than cars is that they do not need batteries, but instead the electricity can be conducted by an electrified third rail or an overhead wire, like in subways and streetcars. It is definitely true that the placement of overhead wires and poles will cost money, but setting up an extensive infrastructure of hydrogen generation plants, pipelines and storages will be even more expensive, considering that hydrogen can embrittle most any metal in a process called “hydrogen infiltration”, making the metal storage tanks and pipelines more maintenance-intensive then, say, a gas pipeline. The trains themselves would not need a storage device on their roofs, making them less expensive to manufacture, and while HFC vehicles can be fueled in less than 20 minutes, the above method does not need refueling, since it is always connected to the power source.
Finally, there is the factor of performance. If hydrogen fuel cells give vastly or considerably more performance than other alternatives, than they are a reasonable choice, but the fact remains that HFC go-trains neither have nor need that kind of power differential. In fact, grid electricity is currently vastly better than HFCs in terms of train speed, range and power output: all current bullet trains use grid electricity because of these advantages.
Modern bullet trains can exceed 300 km/hour of speed even when fully loaded.
In conclusion, HFC go-trains are largely pointless and are outclassed by their electric counterparts in all aspects, be it performance, logistics or cost. As a result, it will be online much sooner and much more cheaply, at no disadvantage to the customers.
0 notes