Friday 26th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

a confusing look at the idea of games from war-games to boys’ own...

games

Mathematics and chance have made some strange bedfellows, especially in the realm of games. For example anyone playing chess at the highest level would know that the white team, having the first move, should always win, unless a mistake is made and this advantage is lost. But there are games where chance is a greater factor in success or failure. You could be given a rotten hand at poker and win on bluff alone but this stretches the “Game Theory” beyond mathematical equations. Or does it? 


It seems to me that the reviewer of Game Changers in Science Magazine might have lost the purpose of this “simpler” book in which Taschner, an Austrian (not an Australian) mathematician, “admits that an account based on invented conversations and dramatized interactions cannot be historically accurate”. But this invention may not be a need to explain a “historical” result, just a possibility. The German title of the book does not use the words “game” nor “changers”. It says “The mathematics of Existence” which in itself is a different ball-game. Some of the subtlety of language might have been lost in translation and muddled the real purpose of the book with a preconceived view in relation to the “game theory” — even if the book refers to the “game theory”... 


The “Game Theory” itself can be a misnomer for this accepted system — “the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers” — has rules that can be broken by any party in the game, should the game itself become dangerous and involve arousing psychopathy. History is full of this dangerous wind change, which can involve deliberate misunderstandings. Deceit tends to prevail. Presently, gun laws in the US tend to favour the “game of killing people”. The “Cold War” was  a “game” played under slow shifting rules of nuclear annihilation. Should one of the party decided that it has nothing to lose, the game can change quickly and degenerate into a major conflict. Is this still a game? 


“Game theory” is mainly used in economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic, computer science and biology. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which one person’s gains result in losses for the other participants. But zero-sum games are not so equally “balanced”. The thinking is linked to a win or loose situation in which your gain is my loss, but in reality, emotional and cultural loss is difficult to assess. The loss of life does not indicate that the winner “wins” an extra life — possibly “an extra space” or the relative continuation of its own life at best. 


Economically, theses games can be a continual bum-fight with changing rules and powerplay, despite agreements. In reality, no-one is an intelligent rational decision-maker. Everyone is a thief. Most people are in it to grab and steal as much as possible without kicking the chessboard which would be uncouth — though some people by-pass or delete existing rules or agreements. Trump and the Iran deal for example. In computer sciences, like in royal politics, the Byzantine equation rules to a certain point at which uncertainty becomes too great for a definitive answer or a proper “picture quality”. Pandemonium “rules”.


Games should be amusing and fun. War games are the opposite of this premise. The book from which the illustration at top comes from was published in 1912. Based on Boy’s Own Paper, it was designed to “bring pleasure to young people” (boys). The first chapter is, guess what, dedicated to conjuring (basically deceiving the audience with a magic trick) in which there is “a practical and interesting exhibition of legerdemain”... 


In Middle French, folks who were clever enough to fool others with fast-fingered illusions were described as “leger de main,” literally “light of hand.” English speakers condensed that phrase into a noun when they borrowed it in the 15th century and began using it as an alternative to the older “sleight of hand.” In a single word: “deceit”.


Such games of deceit are “entertaining” and not dangerous. War games are rehearsals of tactics of war in order to test the preparedness of the systems of war, from command to troops. No fun in this, except to the psychos who tally the blows to prepare for the real thing that is PLANNED TO BE DANGEROUS for someone, including one’s own troops. See Gallipoli...


Political games are full of this deceit and can also become dangerous for those at the losing end. At this stage, I would say that The Donald is playing a straight down the barrel game, using a straight big bat without any refinement of stroke to say the least, in which the opponents are officially politically belittled and intimidated, thus with minimal deceit, while Clinton and Obama talked the talk with elegance, but were full of deceit in their actions designed to hit someone. They got away with it because the arbiter of the rules, the media, is blind, dithering, old and biased. The Donald has taken the referee (the media) to task by challenging the concept of news, fake or otherwise. 


In business, the game is a way to stimulate motivation to sell, without ever giving up and doing it without irking the opponent — in this case the buyer — with too much persistence.

In The Game Changer (How to Use the Science of Motivation With the Power of Game Design to Shift Behaviour, Shape Culture and Make Clever Happen) Jason Fox use the science of motivation with the power of game design to unlock motivation and drive progress in organisations. His view is that there are two conventional ways to approach motivation: set goals and try to change attitudes and beliefs (which takes a lot of personalised effort — hard work); or develop incentives and rewards to inspire effort (which takes a lot of money — carrots). According to Fox, there is a another approach, that of designing the work itself to be inherently motivating (entertaining).


The Mathematics of Existence explains for lay readers the uses and value of easy-to-understand approach to mathematical modelling. Essentially, game theory interprets life as a game with mathematical rules. By following the rules, decisions can be calculated that result in greatest benefits for all participants. That is the theory...


The author takes the reader from the Cold War to today’s age of turbo-capitalism. Along the way he introduces such leading contributors as Blaise Pascal in the 17th century, who invented the theory of probability; Ludwig Wittgenstein (already mentioned on this site), for whom the meaning of words is best understood as their use within a given language-game; John Nash (the subject of A Beautiful Mind) in the 1950s, who laid the foundation of modern game theory; and today’s practitioners who apply the theory to global finance and military strategy. As the author shows, game theory is more than a type of cost-benefit analysis; ultimately, it is a quest for meaning...


Gus says that meaning there is none, but the game creates its own purpose, including planetary life, in which the food-chain becomes the rule book of relative survival for species.


For us, cultivating peace, harmony, enjoyment without destroying something, becomes our present challenging game. We sux at it.

 

Gus Leonisky

Playing games since 1912...

boys before they become adult boofheads...

gumes

From the book at top, published 1912.

See also:

on the edge of the cliff...

the US war game, for one trillion dollars...

 

Every day the Democrats attack the Republican Trump for his war-mongering statements. Yet they have got together with the Republicans in the Senate and voted to increase the Pentagon’s budget to 700 billion dollars in 2018. This is 60 billion more than what Trump had actually requested. If you add the 186 billion per year for veterans and other heads, the US’s total military expenditure jumps to around 1,000 billion. This is a quarter of the federal budget.

The unanimous vote of the Senate Armed Services Committee (“the Committee”) formed of 14 Republican Senators and 13 Democrats is decisive. The Committee emphasises that “the United States must strengthen its deterrence against Russian aggression. Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, threaten our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and bolster the Assad regime in Syria.”

Furthermore, the Committee accuses Russia of leading “an unparalleled attack on our core interests and values”, in particular through “an active, purposeful campaign to undermine the integrity of American democracy.”

A true and proper declaration of war, by which the bipartisan alliance motivates empowering the entire war machine. These are some of the heads of expenditure in fiscal year 2018 (which started on 1 October 2017): 
• 10.6 billion dollars to purchase 94 F-35 bomber fighters; 24 more F-35s than the Trump Administration requested; 
• 17 billion for an “anti-missile shield” and military activities in space; 1.5 billion more than the figure requested by the Administration; 
• 25 billion to build another 13 war ships - 5 billion more than what the Administration requested.

The Budget for 2018 is 700 billion. 640 billion is principally to buy new arms and to maintain military personnel (now 141 billion per annum following an increase in their pay). The remaining 60 billion then goes towards military operations in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Furthermore, 1.8 billion is allocated to training and fitting out armed formations under US command in Syria and Iraq, and 4.9 billion for the “Afghanistan Security Forces Fund”. For the “Initiative for European Reassurance”, that the Obama Administration launched in 2014 following “resurging Russian aggression in Ukraine”, 4.6 billion is allocated in 2018: this serves to grow the presence of US armoured forces and the “strategic advanced positioning” of US arms in Europe. Furthermore, 500 million dollars has been earmarked to provide “lethal assistance” (i.e. arms) to Ukraine.

The increase in the Pentagon’s budget tracks that of other members of the US-led Nato. One of these Nato members is Italy whose military expenditure will have to increase from 70 million euro per day (the current expenditure) to 100 million euro per day. At the same time, the Pentagon’s budget presents what is being prepared for Italy. Among the heads of minor expenses, but not for this reason less important, is 27 million dollars for the Aviano base; more evidence that it continues its empowering in light of the installation of the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, and 65 million for a research and development programme for “a new missile with land base of intermediate range to begin to reduce the capacity threshold triggered by Russian violation of the INF treaty”. In other words, the United States’ agenda includes lining up in Europe nuclear missiles like the Pershing 2 and the Cruise missiles of the eighties. At that time, the latter also stationed in Comiso, Italy.

So this is what the US Senate is announcing, speaking through the unanimous bipartisan vote of its Armed Services Committee.

Manlio Dinucci, Geographer and geopolitical scientist. His latest books are Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio, Zanichelli 2017 ;L’arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016, Zambon 2016.

Read more: http://www.voltairenet.org/article198438.html

 

the FBI illegal worldwide cyberwar...

When the FBI conducted its 2015 Operation Pacifier — aimed at tracking visitors to child porn website ‘the Playpen,' the agency deployed malware on the website that spread to computers around the world. The FBI then blindly broke into any and every infected computer it could identify, without knowing its country of origin or whether or not it was suspected of any crime.

 

The FBI reportedly hacked over 8,000 computers in 120 countries, according to the Daily Beast, severely overstepping the boundaries of the agency's US-only jurisdiction. Aside from damaging diplomatic ties, the actions raised the likelihood of those affected countries hacking computers on US soil in return, experts warn.

According to Scarlet Kim, legal officer at UK-based activist group Privacy International, which has closely followed the FBI's inept and arguably illegal global hacking operation, the agency's  actions are "essentially opening the door for other countries to unilaterally hack devices located in the US in the law-enforcement context."

Hacking computers may provide the FBI with personal information from IP address to personal files. What's worse, the agency's clumsy malware attack does not tell a victim that it is a criminal investigation. A victim of the FBI hack will simply see the malware and its connection to a US government agency — and anyone would assume that it is software being used for the purpose of spying.

"Those risks are especially potent in the hacking context because the identity of the attacker and the purpose of the hack may not be immediately clear," Kim said.

The FBI annoyed Russian networks and security experts in 2002, after the agency hacked several Russian computers to gather evidence on a  cybercrime case.

"We conducted the hack and collection and notified the Russian authorities; only to be notified that arrest warrants had been issued for the agents involved for hacking a Russian computer system," said E.J. Hilbert, a former FBI special agent who worked on that case.

According to Ahmed Ghappour of the Boston University School of Law, international hacking is not yet legally codified. There are no internationally acclaimed norms of conduct, therefore the FBI's actions create a dangerous precedent.

"Without the articulation of specific norms on when, how, and who law-enforcement actors should be permitted to hack, cross-border cyberoperations that are attributed to US law enforcement may send unintended signals to other states," he said.

Collin Anderson, a cybersecurity researcher, echoed the concerns:

"The true risk is how the FBI's procedures and communications about their use of malware creates international norms that are adopted by countries where rule of law is weak," he told the Daily Beast.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/science/201711111059002161-fbi-hack-borders-precedent/

when the game is nuclear...

 

 in Washington

Wednesday 15 November 2017 09.52 AEDTLast modified on Wednesday 15 November 201709.53 AEDT

US military commanders would refuse to carry out a presidential order to carry out a nuclear first strike that they thought was illegal, senators were told on Tuesday.


Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the chamber’s foreign relations committee, has expressed fears that the president was taking the country “on the path to world war III”. Separately CNN reported on Tuesday that a “Nato partner country” had raised concerns about Trump’s command of the US nuclear launch system, under which the president alone can order a launch.The assurances came at the first congressional hearings since 1976 on presidential authority to order the use of the US nuclear arsenal, against a background of mounting concern over North Korea’s nuclear programme – and Donald Trump’s emotional stability.

Opening the hearing, Corker – who has recently been engaged in bitter exchanges with Trump over his fitness for office – noted that “the president has the sole authority to give that order, whether we are responding to a nuclear attack or not”.

“Once that order is given and verified, there is no way to revoke it,” the Tennessee senator said. “To be clear, I would not support changes that would reduce our deterrence of adversaries or reassurance of our allies. But I would like to explore, as our predecessors in the House did 41 years ago, the realities of this system.”

Chris Murphy, Democratic senator from Connecticut, said: “We are concerned that the president of the United Status is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national security interests.”

Retired Gen Robert Kehler, commander of US Strategic Command (StratCom) from 2011 to 2013, told the Senate committee that he would have refused to have carried out a nuclear first strike on presidential orders, if he believed it did not meet the requirements of proportionality and necessity under the law of armed conflict.

“I would have said: I’m not ready to proceed,” Kehler said.

“Then what happens?” he was asked.

“I don’t know,” he replied. “Fortunately, these are all hypothetical scenarios. There is the human factor in our system. There is a human element to this.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/14/us-military-nuclear-weap...

 

against a military confrontation...

 

A war with North Korea would result in the "end of humanity", the Philippine president warned, in the strongest comments yet against a military confrontation after US President Donald Trump wrapped up his Asia-Pacific trip.

Rodrigo Duterte predicted a war with the North would end in a "nuclear holocaust" in his closing remarks at the ASEAN summit on Tuesday in Manila.

He said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un "is toying with these nuclear bombs" that are 200-300 times more powerful than what the United States dropped on Japan during World War II.

''We cannot start a war with the North Korean crisis looming ahead. There are dark clouds there. We better pray," Duterte told the audience.

"If all of those missiles and the (intercontinental ballistic missile) ICBM's would explode, that would mean the end of humanity… The destruction, it would be the end of everything," he warned.

read more:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/rodrigo-duterte-war-korea-humanity...

 

distasteful war game games have been cancelled...

 

A Sydney RSL has cancelled a war-themed video game tournament, in which players shoot dead their opponents to win cash prizes, after complaints in the lead-up to Anzac Day that it was inappropriate and disrespectful to war veterans.

The tournament, based on the popular video game Call of Duty: World War II, was to be held at Castle Hill RSL in Sydney's north-west on May 8 — less that two weeks after Anzac Day.

However, veterans complained to the NSW Minister for Veterans' Affairs, David Elliot, that the tournament was "distasteful" and "inappropriate".

"I've never played the game but I understand this is a game of skill and you go into the virtual reality and kill the enemy," Mr Elliot said.

"In this case, Castle Hill RSL is offering up to $300 in prize money if you kill enough people."

Mr Elliott said there were plenty of entertainment options for an RSL to provide and that it was a "strange" choice for the RSL.

"I do think promoting war as entertainment a week after Anzac Day, in front of veterans and war widows is probably just stepping over the line," he said.

Mr Elliot said he had "informally" expressed his concerns to the RSL movement and had spoken to the NSW Minister for Racing Paul Toole about the issue.

"I've told [him] that my interpretation of the regulations from the Department of Gaming and Racing are that games cannot be distasteful and I think that the concerns raised by my constituents that it could be deemed as distasteful are justified," he said.

 

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/call-of-duty-world-war-ii-video-to...

 

Read from top.

the chinese are coming...

The new games played with expensive machines:

 

Eleven trillion renminbi: it's a number that's hard to comprehend.

Key points:
  • China wants to be world leader in AI by 2030
  • It's a key part of Beijing's plan to refashion its image as a cheap goods manufacturer
  • Experts warn against deploying AI in warfare too quickly

 

In Australian dollars that's about $2.41 trillion — far bigger than Australia's entire economy — and it's the target China has set for the value of its artificial intelligence and AI-related industries by 2030.

China is said to have accounted for more than half of all global AI investment over the last five years and in just the next three years alone Beijing expects a tenfold increase in the size of the industry.

And if you're still not convinced China is serious about artificial intelligence, remember Xi Jinping made mention of AI in his opening address to the Communist Party Congress last year. 

"The hype around China's investment in AI is definitely the highest in the world," the University of Oxford's Jeffrey Ding says.

The huge AI investment is all part of what Beijing calls "Made in China 2025" — a master plan to reposition China as an industrial superpower of the future.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-06/china-plans-to-become-ai-world-lea...

 

A message to Orstrayans: just work harder, weave more baskets and dig more holes... read from top. See also:

tired of being the cake of kings and of emperors, after the opium wars and being the US slave factory...

 

Er...: "Experts warn against deploying AI in warfare too quickly"?

   How fast can we go on this? 2 miles per hour, 10,000 kilometres an hour, 2 billion light years? What a silly statement. AI is already installed in US self-assessing drones and other gadgets that by-pass human "intelligence" if there was any (human intelligence) in the first place...

 

Read from top again and see: 

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35460