Freedom of Speech

The last week has been an extraordinary test of freedom of speech, as Wikileaks has begun publishing confidential US diplomatic communications ("cables") on the internet. The leaks themselves are less interesting than the global, especially US, response to them.

As for the leaks themselves, I've read a number of them, and for the most part, they are well-written, short but sweet summaries of some international or diplomatic issue. Crime in Mexico, corruption in Russia, etc. There are some confirmations of stuff we all suspected was true, but had no official word on, such as China hacking Google. Some of the cables reveal issues that other countries should be concerned about, such as Saudi Arabia asking the US to invade Iran, even though the Saudi citizens are largely pro-Iran and anti-US. The most shocking problem revealed by the cables is that the US asked its diplomats to spy on UN officials. The painful irony is that we are supposed to be building trust with our diplomatic relationships, yet we cannot be trusted ourselves.

Nothing so far has been a "bombshell" that will make heads roll (but we'll see, only a tiny fraction have been released).

But, officials in the US are calling for Julian Assange's blood. This is wrong.

It makes no difference whether Wikileaks is morally in the right. They are not a US entity, and they are not breaking US law. They are exercising freedom of speech. (There are certain exceptions for abuse of speech, but Wikileaks wouldn't fall under any of them.) The US government should not be squelching anyone who is exercising their right to freedom of speech, especially when it is political in nature. The highest protection for freedom of speech is for speech criticizing the government.

Yet various members of our government are condemning their actions and started a chain reaction where Wikileaks has lost access to funding (PayPal and some credit cards dropped support) and web hosting (Amazon dropped them). Not to mention some mysterious vague accusations of sexual behavior against Julian Assange--though I admit he may have brought that on himself.

This is a scary picture of what happens when you upset the US government. No one has yet claimed Wikileaks is breaking the law, and yet they have nearly been shut down. This is not how our democracy is supposed to work.

Sanity in Numbers

This past weekend was the historic Rally to Restore Sanity. I did not attend, but I support the cause.

What I find fascinating today are the heated debates on the internet arguing whose rally was bigger. The whole thing is juvenile, but my curiousity got the best of me. Here's a breakdown of what I learned.

It seems that Glenn Beck and many of his supporters believe his rally had 200, 300, 500 thousand attendees. Whereas the estimate for the Stewart/Colbert rally is around 215,000, and it seems few are arguing it (although there are many reports that thousands were unable to make it in due to the size of the crowd). The former appears to be unsourced (i.e. it's truthy) (there are some claims that the National Park Service said there were 200k attendees, but I have not seen a reliable source for this, and anyway the count would not have been scientific) while the latter was done by AirPhotosLive using statistical methods. In fact AirPhotosLive also did an estimate of Glenn Beck's rally, and arrived at 87,000.

Now, there is a somewhat legitimate claim that AirPhotosLive could be biased. They were commissioned by CBS in both cases, and CBS is a sister company of Comedy Central (or something like that). I would reject that as implausible, however, due to how tenuous the connection is.

But the debate doesn't end there. Of course, there is visual evidence. Here are the best photos I found of the two rallies:

(original source)

(original source)

The top is Rally to Restore Sanity, the lower is the Restoring Honor rally. The lower photo is missing only a small number of people below the bottom edge, as can be confirmed from other photos of the event. Moreover, from close-up photos, you can see that at Beck's rally, people were comfortably spaced, many in lawn chairs, while the Stewart/Colbert rally was standing room only, shoulder-to-shoulder.

Given the densities of the crowd, and the relative areas occupied by each (deduced from the photos and a map of the area), I think it's pretty easy to see that the Rally to Restore Sanity was easily 2x the size. Furthermore, I would say the count of 200k is entirely reasonable, if you estimate the number of pixels per person, and the number of pixels in the photo of people.

What's remarkable is how many people do not trust the published numbers. A quick sanity check reveals they're entirely reasonable.

Chopin at Symphony Hall

Tuesday the 19th, my attendance was compulsory at an all-Chopin program at Symphony Space in the Peter Jay Sharp Theatre. Anne-Marie McDermott starred as the pianist, with Marta Wryk the singer and Rafal Jezierski the cellist.

A few excursions before I review the program itself. First, I found about about this performance through a Facebook ad. Finally, after thousands of "Harvard Grad? Get $1 teeth cleaning!" ads, they are starting to target me more appropriately.

Second, it turns out there are several Peter Jay Sharp Theatres in New York. If you google for it, as I did, you'll find the one in the Lincoln Center. Apparently many others were also misdirected. Fortunately they're not too far apart, and I was able to take the subway and still arrive on time.

Third, the program started way late. I know it's standard for programs to start 5-10 mins after the headline time, but this was quite late (possibly because of the number of confused people at the other Peter Jay Sharp theatre?). And then they spent the first ten or so minutes announcing the results of the piano competition held earlier that day. Of course I have the greatest respect for the young musicians (and, GO HARVARD, a 16-year-old Harvard student was named audience favorite), but not so great that I want to wait for my music to start on a work night :P

Fourth, regarding the piano competition, each contestant had to play a (or two?) Chopin etude. They reported the most commonly played was 10-10. Seriously? It's such a superficial piece. I would take anything in Op. 25 over that one.

Finally, Symphony Space gives highly discounted tickets to anyone 30 and under. I can understand broke college students, but 30 and under? Is my generation really so stingy we won't pay for real musical talent?

Songs

The songs for piano plus voice, Opus 74, are perhaps some of the most obscure Chopin works. It's not hard to see why: Polish is not the most widely appreciated language, and the pieces are such a small fraction of his repertoire. But, like the preludes and etudes, their small scope doesn't mean they don't have wonderful musical content. Less complex than his typical piano pieces, they are still well-crafted, please the ear, and encompass a range of emotion.

Marta Wryk was the native Pole who performed the voice. Rather than critique this performance, I'm going to make a more general claim. I think vibrato in classical music is way overdone. I have no doubt that it takes a great deal of hard work and talent to produce a sonorous, controlled vibrato, but frankly, I question the musical value. For such light pieces as these, I feel that the tempestuous vibrato of a classical opera singer isn't appropriate. Throughout the performance, all I could really hear was the vibrato, and I couldn't appreciate the melodic line.

So perhaps it was a fine performance by the usual technical standards, but musically I would have taken it a different direction.

Mazurkas

Next on the program was the piano solo, beginning with the four mazurkas Op. 17. The mazurkas seem to occupy a strange place in Chopin's repertoire: they are not as widely known as his flagship pieces such as the Ballades, but they arguably offer the best insight into Chopin's style. The typical Mazurka is short but extremely musically complex, with modest technical difficulties but great musical difficulties. One listening is rarely enough to even begin appreciating them.

This is really where McDermott shined. She had excellent control of the dynamics, and she had the passion needed to bring character to these vignettes. She ranks among the best performances of these I have, almost reminding me of Horowitz in the amount of expression. My only suggestion would be to use a bit more variety in dynamics when repeated sections are encountered; I noticed the same passage being played exactly the same on the second and third reprises.

Ballade No. 1

Ah, the G minor Ballade. One of Chopin's best-known works, it is a staple of any pianist's repertoire.

However, disregarding the technical difficulties (which, like other Chopin pieces, can be moderately difficult but is no obstacle to a professional pianist), I think this is one of the easier pieces to perform well. The expression of this piece comes naturally and it is not difficult to follow its thoughts.

McDermott chooses a fast tempo for this piece, among the fastest I've heard. This actually can work fine for most of the piece, but there are definitely portions where the loveliness goes by too fast. Still, the performance was enjoyable and sent chills up my spine.

Grande Valse Brillante

After an intermission, we return with the Waltz Opus 18. This is something of a parlor piece: a lot of fun without too much heavy material--though Chopin always sneaks in a lyrical section anyway. The characterizing attribute of this piece is lots of rapidly repeated notes. McDermott again chooses a fast tempo here, and I noticed some of the repeated notes missing (though to be fair it's not very noticeable and I'm just being a snob). Nevertheless, it was a very fun performance.

Berceuse

A rare sort of composition from Chopin, this piece is an ostinato with a repeated bass line throughout. The right hand receives increasingly embellished variants on the theme. Not one of my favorite pieces, but I can't complain about the performance of it.

Scherzo

To wrap up the solo piano part of the program, and the piece that I was most looking forward to, we are treated to Scherzo No. 1.

Chopin's scherzos, perhaps with the exception of No. 4, have nothing to do with the traditional form other than being 3/4 with an extremely fast tempo. Etymologically, a scherzo is a musical "joke", and it is the usual performance instruction for the playful or dance-like movements of a sonata. However, Chopin's scherzos are profound, dramatic, and sometimes even sinister. The first in B minor is one of Chopin's more chromatic pieces, with a lot of tense harmonies and a rather vague melody. The middle section of the piece is a huge contrast to the rest of the piece, being a calm, lyrical section based on some traditional Polish Christmas song (if I recall correctly).

Again choosing a fast tempo, McDermott performs one of the most impetuous, electric renditions I have heard. I found it hard to stay seated through the performance. She crushed a lot keys to give the piece an extra heavy bass beat, and the right hand ripped through the strings of notes with fury. Really, it was an awesome interpretation; I have quite a few recordings of this piece but I've only enjoyed Horowitz's as much.

From a technical standpoint, it was a little muddy. She hit a certain wrong note at least a couple times--the reach at the end of many of the right-hand phrases--which I am familiar with as I've hit the same wrong note myself many times. A lot of the notes got washed away in the fury, perhaps a bit less pedal would clean things up. Still, I would buy her CD.

Cello

The final section of the program was some piano-cello pieces. Contrary to what was announced earlier, two of the three pieces were not written by Chopin for piano-cello, but rather are arrangements.

First was the etude 25-7, a natural candidate for a cello arrangement as the melody is in the left hand. However, I thought this made a pretty mediocre piece. Frankly the cello is not as expressive as the piano. Maybe it was just the cellist, but the dynamic range required for this song is not met by the cello. And so we end up with the piano part actually being more expressive than the cello, even though the latter is supposed to be carrying the song.

Next, the famous Nocturne 9-2. Most of my comments for the etude apply here as well. The cello struggled a bit with getting the very high notes right, missing and then needing to adjust, and so this song was a bit of a miss for me.

Finally, was Opus 3, Introduction and Polonaise Brillante, which was written by Chopin for piano plus cello. Like Chopin's other early pieces, I feel that this was a bit of a technical show-off; the piano part was quite amazing I thought. Quite an enjoyable piece of music.

Concluding Remark

Although you wouldn't guess it from all my criticism, this was probably my favorite musical event I've been to in NYC. It's just amazing how Chopin captures everything wonderful about music to me.

Forever Zero

My brother started a blog. If you like videogames, you should come over!

QFT

The people with the most public voice--journalists and politicians--often have little to no clue what they're talking about... There's nothing wrong with a lack of knowledge of areas outside your expertise; the problem is when you misrepresent the truth or raise hell over an issue you don't fully understand. The journalist's job is to acquire expertise needed to report accurately. The politician's job is to seek advice from experts and serve their constituents. Please do your job!

Sigh... I wrote this over a year ago and I feel it's worse now than ever.

Almost amazing

I just noticed this utility in Windows 7. At first I couldn't believe it, but then I found it's quite flawed... :/

Thomas Adés

A couple weeks ago, I went to Carnegie Hall for the first time to watch a piano performance. (I've wanted to go several times, but it's so damn hard to get out by 7pm on a weekday.)

I zipped down to 59th street on the 4 train and walked over to Carnegie Hall on a fresh Saturday evening. I arrived about 25 minutes early, as getting a good seat was a top priority. After all, why go to a piano concert live if you can't see the hands? So I bought tickets on the first tier, left side of the stage, giving me a good view of the keyboard.

Like many concert halls, there's no legroom. This was actually a box seat, and the seats in it were movable, but the only way for me to give a respectful amount of room for my neighbors was to have my knees pressed against the banister. Annoying.

The program selection was divine.

First, a collection of pieces by Janáček. I've heard little of his music (I haven't heard his operas, which I guess he is most noted for), but what I've heard I've enjoyed, and this was no exception. A nice variety of colors, with a little bit of modern harmony, somewhat reminding me of Kabalevsky. For sure I need to check out more of his work.

Next, one of my three favorite Liszt pieces, Isolde's Liebestod from Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. The Horowitz recording of this piece is untouchable, but Adés had a capable performance. He brought out much more of the middle voices, so I got to hear quite a different perspective on the piece.

Third, a collection of Prokofiev pieces from Sarcasms, Op 17. I don't recall anything memorable about these pieces; it sounded very much Prokofiev.

Overall the first half of the program was great. An amazing selection of pieces. I was less impressed with the second half, sadly. First, a Schubert piece, which, like every other Schubert piece, was entirely forgettable. Frankly, I wish Schubert were kept where he belongs: as background music, and not on stage. (Harsh :)

Next, the highlight of the program: works by Adés himself. He arranged for piano 4 pieces from his opera Powder Her Face. These were very modern pieces, with non-tertian harmonies and flagrant sarcasm. There was a wide variety in the pieces, ranging from farcical to meditative, from simple to virtuosic. There were moments I enjoyed, though overall I didn't think it was great; at least there was enough variety in the works that I had plenty to listen to. Still, much better than most modern pieces I've heard.

He wrapped up the main program Six Bagatelles by Beethoven Op 126. I thought that was a little too much classical-era music to finish a program otherwise so emotionally loaded, but it's also hard to go wrong with Beethoven.

There were a couple encores, a short Liszt piece followed by something modern. The Liszt was good; I couldn't understand the other piece even though (or because?) it was slow.

The pianism overall was decent. Technically, I didn't hear any wrong notes (which is impressive given the difficulty of the program), but I thought the runs were a little weak; more volume or clarity in the runs would've really helped at times. Also, although he did a good job voicing various melodic lines, I thought he suffered a bit from lack of dynamics in the voices he was emphasizing. I think this was the main detractor from his performance. The melodies needed more shape.

Nevertheless, overall an enjoyable concert, and a very promising musician.

A new generation of math

The power of computers with modern algorithms is gradually revolutionizing mathematics. We're all aware of the numerical capabilities, but their effectiveness goes far beyond that.

Computers have basically created the field of experimental mathematics. As computer and algorithm technology improves, we will be seeing experimental math progressing in fields of mathematics that formerly were strictly a human art.

• The PSLQ algorithm, which allows one to turn a decimal expansion into a formula. Often mathematical constants can be computed relatively easily. This algorithm gives a way to identify constants with only minimal input on what the form should be.
• Gosper's algorithm turns all those tricky combinatorial sums into trivial computer exercises. It has even resolved open problems, such as proving sum_k C(n,k)^3 has no explicit formula.
• Computer-verified proofs. This field is young, but there is interesting progress. Many of the elementary, and some non-elementary, theorems in mathematics have been rigorously shown correct by a computer. No more doubt about whether the human proofs are using some step that the axioms don't support.

Jury Duty

Back in July, I was summoned for jury duty in Manhattan. Although this meant annoyingly missing most of my work day (and making up for it in the evenings), I was looking forward to seeing our legal system in action. In the end, I didn't get much of a look into our legal system, as I didn't serve on a jury, but I did get to see others' attitude towards jury duty, and I was disappointed.

It's a natural reaction to want to get out of jury duty. It's an unfamiliar interruption to our routine and an uncertain commitment.

Many people made it obvious they wanted to get out of jury duty. And I found that offensive. More on that later.

After spending most of the day in a waiting room--where people read, checked email, or nodded off--we were finally summoned to the courtroom for jury selection. We got a quick overview of the charges (a lower Manhattan burglary), followed by some basic screening. The judge asked if anyone doesn't speak English. Several people raised their hands; a few spoke so little English they were excused, but a few were asked to stay. Next, any disabilities that would make you unable to serve. A couple people were excused for back or knee problems that make sitting difficult, and a couple people shared their concerns privately with the judge. One guy, whom we'll call Todd, said he was hard of hearing in his right ear. The judge asked if Todd could hear him; of course Todd said yes, but realizing he just made himself known, he defended himself saying he sometimes missed words. The judge didn't buy it, and he was asked to stay.

A few more people tried to get out based on inconvenience. One guy had a vacation scheduled. He had a hard time explaining why he had scheduled a vacation when the jury summons were sent months ago. Some people tried to get out because of work, even though the judge made it clear in the introduction that work is not an excuse (there are protections in the law for employees), except for the rare case of lives being in danger, such as a doctor who has no substitute.

After the initial screen, we began the process of jury selection. A lottery selects 18 people to come up and sit in the jury box. The judge, followed by the lawyers, screen each potential juror. The judge asks essential questions such as education and employment background and whether they understand and can obey the juror instructions (such as not being prejudiced when rendering a verdict).

The selection process fascinated me. The interview went one of three ways: the potential juror was cooperative and generally answered "yes" when asked if they can be unbiased; the potential juror who was excused due to the case "hitting too close to home", such as someone from the same neighborhood or someone who was also a victim of theft/robbery/burglary; and the potential juror who was obviously trying to get out of jury duty. What amazed me was how common the third category was; probably a quarter of the people made painfully obvious attempts to be excused. Most common were victims of some petty theft (and honestly, who hasn't been victim of some theft) who claimed they couldn't be unbiased. The judge was no fool, and he scowled at them and pointed out the absurdity of what they were saying. Most gave in and admitted they could try to be unbiased...

Todd was the worst. He said that "Well he must be guilty if the police have evidence. They wouldn't charge him if he wasn't guilty." The judge pointed out the principle of innocent until proven guilty and other basics we all know; still Todd insisted the defendant is guilty. Todd was no fool; he was an educated guy who worked in insurance. But he was applying all his intellect towards getting out of jury duty. In the end the judge made Todd stay.

After the judge did his basic screening, the lawyers had their (relatively brief) turn. I was extremely unimpressed with the quality of the lawyering, but I guess that's not too surprising considering they were probably both cheap (or free, in the case of the defendant) lawyers. I remember there being some analogy of circumstantial evidence and seeing a puddle outside and concluding it must have rained last night. It was a decent analogy: a puddle by itself might've just been someone who was spraying their sidewalk in the morning, but if everything else was wet, you could safely conclude it was raining. But the execution of the argument almost made me laugh. I guess not every courtroom can be as exciting as Law and Order.

The judges and lawyers confided behind closed doors to select 9 of the first 18 jurors to remain. Todd was excluded--I guess it's not hard to guess why--so he ended up getting his wish. We went through another round of jurors and interviews the following day to get the full jury of 12 with 6 alternates.

During all the downtime in the courtroom, I had a chance to chat with some of my neighbors. In addition to the info I got from the on-stage screening of potential jurors, I have to conclude that Manhattan residents are not at all representative of the rest of the country. During the screening, I sat next to a UPenn graduate and a banker who used to work at the same firm as I do. At least one screened juror was also a Harvard grad, and quite a few others with Ivy league educations and prestigious jobs. Given that jury selection is supposed to be a random sample of the population, I was surprised just how large a fraction of people (probably half) were "upper class".

Anyway, I want to finish up by saying how angry I was at people who try to get out of jury duty. This is the American justice system; it's what makes the abstract words of our laws into a reality protecting our rights and privileges. Fundamental to it is that everyone is guaranteed a fair trial. Every individual depends on and benefits greatly from our judicial system. We are all in debt to our legal system, and so when we're asked to contribute to it, we should do so thankfully. Todd wasted the time of everyone in the courtroom and showed no respect for the principles of justice, for the selfish reason that he didn't want sit on a jury for a few days.

Five years!

Amazing that our 5-year reunion is coming up already. Time flies. (Ok, so really it's been less time for me, but it's still been a few years.) Here's what I wrote for my yearbook blurb.

Five years later, I find myself far from where I would have predicted. After graduating, I set out to find a teaching or programming job, with the intention to return to grad school after a couple years. Instead, despite having no corporate experience, I was headhunted on to Wall Street and decided to give it a go. As serendipity would have it, the chance to apply mathematics to the fast-paced world of finance was just the right fit for me.

I got a lot more than I signed up for. I entered finance as the economy was booming, and had a front-row seat as things unwound. Dozens of my colleagues lost their jobs, but after a very scary year, our firm made it through the crisis. Now the media is on a witch hunt, and we're the targets.

There's not much time outside of work, but I try to keep my passions alive. I keep my taekwondo kicks sharp at the gym, I tutor high school students through our firm's mentoring program, and occasionally play some Chopin on my digital piano.

I'm excited as to what the next 5 years will bring.