4 ms·

This is an awfully verbose write-up trying to glean a kind of handwavy deeper meaning behind flocking. I kind of get what its going for, you'll see a lot of int

This is an awfully verbose write-up trying to glean a kind of handwavy deeper meaning behind flocking. I kind of get what its going for, you'll see a lot of interesting crowd behavior from a simple view of a predator-prey model where you replace lions consuming gazelles with arrests. A couple people have asked me about what they should wear to protests and I suggested wearing zebra stripes. If enough people do it, it makes it hard to visually track what direction people are going in when they disperse and has the benefit of reducing bug bites. The idea here is good though, a swarm is a decent model for how protestors should behave because their forces are about numbers whereas the police are about specialization. I mean one of the more remarkable things about protests globally is the emergence of more distinct support classes offering dedicated services. As soon as trouble brews, I see people on both sides clearing out the most vulnerable because they probably can't afford to get arrested. There's definitely a hierarchy of high-value targets unfortunately. A good example is the emergence of white shields. If you really want to get into it, attrition models here model rates for both factions. You can simulate it yourself with a cellular automata model for a visual representation. Appropriate considering they are literally using phalanxes. http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/modelling-warfare http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/modelling-warfare Here's the interesting thing to me. What allows swarm behavior in humans isn't the advent of Internet technology or fancy math. Sure, social media makes it easier to coordinate immediate responses and allocate ourselves. But the only reason any of this happening is that we find ourselves having a lot of free time to actually understand each other, decide to agree on something and then organize a time and place to do it. Aside: Dear Hacker News, if you really want to make a difference on the ground, consider offering tech stations where people can charge batteries or get service. Maybe take the time to teach people about surveillance cameras and adversarial fashion. Or you know, just tell people how to set up Signal. You might think this is low hanging fruit, but your average citizen is intimidated by it or completely isolated from the stuff that we get bored about. I know at least a good deal of us are frustrated that the average consumer is not more savvy or protective of their digital rights. What's beautiful about computer technology to me is how we help each other by teaching people to help themselves. Not everyone needs to know DevOps, but getting a community to switch from unencrypted messaging is fun and simple if you show them how easy it is. Back to business: It's kind of a coding rite of passage to cook up the physics for a flocking system. Reynold's boids model is a masterful demonstration in how to intuitively understand class behavior. My boss once asked me if we would ever be able to compute the complex behavior of bird swarms. I immediately flipped around and said yes, one day in the distant future of 1986. A bit snarky. I regretted it immediately. He just expressed disappointment by how simple it ended up being. I explained that its just a model of understanding and elegant for it, real life behavior is a lot more chaotic and nuanced than this toy. In 2D it runs pretty well, and it's a decent stress test on GPUs if you can also generalize the structure to take advantage of 3D engines. Here's a link to Daniel Shiffman's excellent write up and code examples illustrating the phenomena: https://natureofcode.com/book/chapter-6-autonomous-agents/ https://natureofcode.com/book/chapter-6-autonomous-agents/ Another interesting take on swarming behavior is the study of convexity in the generalized raptor problem. The discrete version of this problem is a kind of flavor of the N-Queens problem. Basically you're solving for an ODE so the police on all sides can't get you.

roenxi 6y ago
> Dear Hacker News, if you really want to make a difference on the ground... At risk of being cynical, dear Hacker News - avoid protests and think about how to be effective if you want to get involved in politics. I can count on not very many fingers how many times I've seen protests accomplish anything useful. Protests, as a political tool, are for minority opinions to keep themselves in the spotlight using tactics a little bit like a pufferfish. If an opinion has the numbers there are much more effective political routes to take. Political success, ultimately, comes from persuading neutral parties to support a cause or even at a pinch political opponents to become neutrals. Waving placards and chanting doesn't actually do either of those things effectively. Door-knocking and pamphlet distribution is more effective and more sustainable.
- odomojuli 6y ago
  Like I said, thats if you want to make a difference on the ground. Emphasis on the ground. Obviously that's just one battle when there's a war to win. Readers can decide for themselves if going outside right now is a good idea or not. Campaign methods that involve direct contact or visiting people is probably not good advice in my opinion for certain countries. In good spirit, I would like to challenge your argument that protests are just a tool for minority opinions. I wholeheartedly disagree. Nonviolence collective action is one of the most powerful things about democracy. It is by no means a tactic. It may not have a cohesive strategy, but these movements can and do work the numbers games. For me at least, protests can define entire generations of politics well beyond the scope of elected representatives careers or laws that are passed. Anyways, the real meat of my argument: These events define our social contract. They are what define the timeline, not election dates and not term limits. Because ultimately what protests do is either refute or legitimize the value of a single vote. How many modern democracies were formed from rebelling against colonial or imperial rule? I agree with you there that political success can be derived from persuading neutral parties or neutralizing opponents. However, I would not say ultimately, as you know that neither you nor I can predict chaos. We take polls, we make bets, and then everything's on the table because people don't make rational decisions. You're right to be cynical. Everything we say and do either gains or loses votes for each side. Protests do need to be aware of the fact that issues are measured in salience, candidates based on congruence. There's this statistical idea of the "median voter", that frames the argument persuasively for me. Success comes from actually winning. And sometimes you have to remind people to stop being losers. We do not need a moment the opposition can then use to galvanize and consolidate their power, which they've already tried to artificially justify anyways. Note: I have a distinctly American bias on what is appropriate for campaign strategy here that may seem obvious but I have tried my best to generalize my understanding of how election mechanisms work internationally as well.

roenxi 6y ago

> Dear Hacker News, if you really want to make a difference on the ground... At risk of being cynical, dear Hacker News - avoid protests and think about how to be effective if you want to get involved in politics. I can count on not very many fingers how many times I've seen protests accomplish anything useful. Protests, as a political tool, are for minority opinions to keep themselves in the spotlight using tactics a little bit like a pufferfish. If an opinion has the numbers there are much more effective political routes to take. Political success, ultimately, comes from persuading neutral parties to support a cause or even at a pinch political opponents to become neutrals. Waving placards and chanting doesn't actually do either of those things effectively. Door-knocking and pamphlet distribution is more effective and more sustainable.

odomojuli 6y ago
Like I said, thats if you want to make a difference on the ground. Emphasis on the ground. Obviously that's just one battle when there's a war to win. Readers can decide for themselves if going outside right now is a good idea or not. Campaign methods that involve direct contact or visiting people is probably not good advice in my opinion for certain countries. In good spirit, I would like to challenge your argument that protests are just a tool for minority opinions. I wholeheartedly disagree. Nonviolence collective action is one of the most powerful things about democracy. It is by no means a tactic. It may not have a cohesive strategy, but these movements can and do work the numbers games. For me at least, protests can define entire generations of politics well beyond the scope of elected representatives careers or laws that are passed. Anyways, the real meat of my argument: These events define our social contract. They are what define the timeline, not election dates and not term limits. Because ultimately what protests do is either refute or legitimize the value of a single vote. How many modern democracies were formed from rebelling against colonial or imperial rule? I agree with you there that political success can be derived from persuading neutral parties or neutralizing opponents. However, I would not say ultimately, as you know that neither you nor I can predict chaos. We take polls, we make bets, and then everything's on the table because people don't make rational decisions. You're right to be cynical. Everything we say and do either gains or loses votes for each side. Protests do need to be aware of the fact that issues are measured in salience, candidates based on congruence. There's this statistical idea of the "median voter", that frames the argument persuasively for me. Success comes from actually winning. And sometimes you have to remind people to stop being losers. We do not need a moment the opposition can then use to galvanize and consolidate their power, which they've already tried to artificially justify anyways. Note: I have a distinctly American bias on what is appropriate for campaign strategy here that may seem obvious but I have tried my best to generalize my understanding of how election mechanisms work internationally as well.