How to Lie: An Analysis of Deception Algorithms

I never lie, though I have no way to convince you of that. Either way, I am an engineer and I have been thinking about the mechanics of lying. Specifically, I am interested in the logical thought processes required to avoid being caught.

Someone who lies often must constantly keep track of all their lies. Otherwise, they end up saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. The question is this: what is the best way for them to search through the list of lies and ensure that their next sentence won't be disastrous?

The most basic method would be to search through the lies, one at a time in some random order, until a problematic one is found or until they all check out. That is pretty slow, though.

A faster way is to group the lies by topic. Then, only the lies in topics relevant to the conversation must be checked. If this was a computer, then it would probably be more efficient to group the lies within each group and group those as well and so on. However, people have limitations on their ability to control subconscious thought processes; I would guess that only one or two levels of grouping is efficient for people. While this is a great improvement on the basic method, it still requires that every group topic be compared with that of the intended sentence to decide whether it needs to be searched.

The Tree of Lie

Instead of grouping by topic, they could group by person. Only a few lies are relevant to each person. Therefore, it makes sense to only check the lies that are relevant to the person being spoken to. One benefit this has over grouping by topics is that no subjective, time consuming comparisons need to be made for every group to determine whether it is relevant, as for topics. A problem with this method comes when more than one person is listening. It may take significantly longer to check every one of their packages.

So, combine the two, using person grouping when talking to one or two people and topic grouping when talking to many. Also, for some people, it may be helpful to group all their lies by topic as well.

Occasionally, even with a good deception algorithm, there won't be enough time to finish searching through everything. Therefore, the lies should be sorted from most to least important within each group and the groups sorted likewise. Then, they can always be checked in that order and, if there isn't enough time to finish, at least the important lies have been checked.

All of this is very interesting, but do liars actually employ these methods? I have no clue. These are just the absurd musings of an engineer's mind.

Reverse Cloud Computing

When I first heard about cloud computing, I assumed it meant the exact opposite of what it actually implies.

No. I didn't make that myself. Its from Wikipedia.

Basically, cloud computing is just the use of computing resources over a network. However, it has come to describe the services provided by large companies to individual devices over the internet.

What would be the reverse? Individual devices providing computing resources to companies. Think for a second about all the computers doing absolutely nothing at this moment. What if all that computing power being harnessed, somehow?

One way to do it might be to pay people for the use of their unoccupied computers. Then, whenever someone is not using their computer, it can be connected to a server over the internet and used by someone else. This seems like a win win situation to me.

Imagine that an animation company is attempting to render some 3D footage by a deadline. If they don't have enough computing power to finish it on time, they could just pay some provider for the extra resources. Then, the provider connects with a bunch of the computers it has registered in order to perform the additional rendering. The people get paid for doing absolutely nothing, the provider takes a piece, and the company finishes on time. A win win win!

I don't know whether this has already been implemented or if there are reasons why it would not be so useful. Nonetheless, it is certainly a neat idea.

The Real Flat-Earthers

We all know that the earth is round, but, only a few centuries ago, it was almost universally accepted that the earth is flat...

What if pink elephants could fly?

What?! Are there not mountains and valleys all around us? They didn't notice those? They didn't dig wells hundreds of feet deep?

No, people have always known that the earth is not a flat plane.

It can still be "flat-ish" though, you say. True. It can be a cube or a pyramid or a cylinder or a dodecahedron and we are just living on one side. Let me ask you though: do you really believe that anyone thought the earth is shaped like a cube?

They didn't see the circular sun every day? The spherical moon was nonexistent? Nobody ever noticed that lunar eclipses are always circular? When the masts of ships rose above the horizon, just as they do now, nobody gave them a second glance? Are you kidding me?

The truth is that prior to Columbus it was not common knowledge that the earth is flat. In fact, Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth with an error of less than 2% in 240 B.C. The flat earth idea became popular in the 19th century and is perpetuated by elementary school teachers to this day.

The point here is not that we are wrong about something, yet again. It is that people accept this myth, a symbol, if there is any, for gullibility, without a second thought. "Of course," they say, "we are extremely enlightened. Those barbarians could never comprehend something so large. It would make their puny little brains explode. Ha ha ha. Stupid ignorant people..."

Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, but my point stands. With just a little thought, some serious reasons for doubting the myth about the myth can be found. I think it is very clear that we are the real flat-earthers here.

First Post, Smiling Trash Cans

Hi everybody!

I was walking around the UF campus the other day when I noticed a smiling trash can.

"Yipee! Look at meeeee! I'm smiling.
Now, feed me."

And, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I mean, the trash can has needed a makeover since its inception and this looks quite nice, a perfect match of form an function.

Wait a second, do I see two holes for "Bottles & Cans?" As if I am throwing away so many bottles that I can't just do it in one measly hole? Who the hell has so many cans? Oh, they needed it for the smiley face. I see. You'd think they would at least use one eye for the cans and the other for the bottles. Oh well.

These trash cans are new on campus. So, my first thought upon seeing that beautiful face was to imagine the conversation that occurred just before the decision was made to replace the old ones.

"Jim, we have just got to replace those cans. They're plain ugly. Period."
"Are you aware that we are already millions of dollars over budget?"
"Exactly! So, what difference will it make if we spend a couple hundred grand on these cans? They smile goddamn it!"
"We barely have enough to afford our necessary faculty. We can't waste money on silly things like this."
"Oh, come on. It looks like somebody needs to turn that frown around... Come on... You can do it... Even the trash cans are doing it..."
"OK. Fine! We'll get the smiling cans."

I think the worst part is that they made the mouth so small. How can I score a three pointer with a paper ball in a hoop like that? And, suppose I miss and it rolls into the eyes. Am I expected to reach my arm in there and get it out. Although, it doesn't say "Bottles & Cans Only." So, I guess paper is allowed? Let's get this straight: someone actually thought that without the word "Only" after "Landfill Trash," people would be unable to comprehend that bottles and cans are not supposed to go in there! It makes me want to by a soda just to put the bottle in the wrong spot. Muahahahaha.

In case you haven't already noticed, that trash bag, hanging across the middle, is no ordinary bag. It was made specifically for this can. That's right. There is now a factory making trash bags for use only in smiling garbage cans. And, how is the bag supposed to be replaced? Clearly, a new method of bag removal is necessary. Past are the days when garbage containers could simply be emptied into large containers for transport to yet larger containers. Now, we recognize the great care that must be taken to avoid mixing the precious gems on the one side with the toxic sludge on the other. Either that, or Jim's brother own's a smiling garbage bag factory...

So, the new can is not really that useful. Who cares? It still smiles. Isn't that enough?