In which I sign up with the PGP

Back in September 2014, I tried to sign up with the Personal Genome Project, based at UCL in its UK incarnation (Harvard Medical School in the States). Sadly, this proved so popular that admissions had closed by the time I tried. But now they're open again and I've signed up!

It's a process which selects for both intelligence and perseverance. An online exam has to be passed testing your understanding of their ethics policy, the risks and dangers as well as your basic understanding of genetics. The whole thing took me an hour and a half.

They try to scare you off:

"Unanticipated uses of your data and cell lines

"The list of potential uses of your data and cell lines by other individuals is diverse and sometimes worrisome. The benefit of these things is that other researchers will use them in their own work, greatly facilitating the process of scientific research. Other researchers might also create their own interpretations of your genetic data -- and these could make incorrect claims regarding your predisposition to traits and diseases that we cannot control.

"Someone might match your public data against other genetic databases to find matches for yourself or relatives - this includes criminal and forensic DNA fingerprinting databases as well as other genetic research studies.

"More nefarious uses are also possible, if unlikely. DNA is commonly used to identify individuals in criminal investigations. Someone could plant samples of DNA, created from genome data or cell lines, to falsely implicate you in a crime.

"It’s currently science fiction -- but it’s possible that someone could use your DNA or cells for in vitro fertilization to create children without your knowledge or permission, or to create human clones."

Anyway, I'm good with all that.

Hopefully the UCL process will now run and at some point I will be asked to provide a DNA sample.

"You may be invited to provide additional tissues or other specimens as approved by the study and the UCL REC ...

"Description of certain specimen sample collection procedures:

"(i) A skin punch biopsy (about 3–4 mm in diameter) is collected from the underside of the upper arm or hip and requires local anaesthesia. Anaesthetic cream is applied and covered with a bandage for 45–60 minutes then wiped off and swabbed with alcohol to sterilise the area. Then a 3‒4 mm skin biopsy is obtained. A bandage and antibiotic ointment is applied.
...
"The ... skin biopsy may involve pain, bleeding and/or fainting, and may also cause temporary bruising and/or infection at the site of puncture. Some degree of permanent scarring can be expected from the skin biopsy procedure."

Under 'Benefits' the documentation states:

"ARTICLE VII: Benefits

"7.1 No benefits to you

"You are not likely to benefit in any way as a result of your participation in the PGP-UK."

So cool.

Me at the gym vs. Chris Froome

My post "Burning it up at the gym" noted that Chris Froome averaged 414 watts on his breakthrough climb in the 2015 Tour de France. The aerobic machines at the gym show Calorie counts, but taken at face value and converting kcals/hr to watts I seem to be generating more than 800 watts during aerobic exercises!

Dream on!

This afternoon I used the Rowing Machine in power-meter mode. Here are the results.

• Protocol: five minutes: three @ one-minute hi-intensity + two one-minute recovery periods.


• Distance covered: 1,100 metres.


• Average power: 147 watts


• Average power during hi-intensity: 210 watts


• Absolute highest power: 265 watts momentarily.

I'm put in my place: I develop about half the power of Chris Froome during a sustained climb.

All hail our affably-evil overlords!

We, the people, often fall short of the ideals of our liberally-minded rulers. In the future they will look to genome editing to fix that (as Bertolt Brecht already intimated when I was two). Stephen Michael Stirling in the Draka books and Ken MacLeod in 'Intrusion' have already been there.

The UK - proud to be part of The Domination

The Draka series is right up there with Brave New World and 1984 when it comes to real scary futures. What makes the Draka so insidious is that  - like our own elites - they're actually quite pleasant from their own point of view, even admirable.

And so we get to the concept of the 'affably evil':

"Gwendolyn Ingolffsen, the eponymous villainess of S. M. Stirling's Drakon, is quite nice and friendly for a member of a genetically-engineered master race who is attempting to reduce the whole human race of the parallel Earth she find herself stranded on to eternal slavery and degradation. She sees it as merely a necessary "taming" of "ferals".

"There are hints in the story (and others in the series) that she's actually quite mellow for a member of her species. In fact, all Draka are like this. As long as you accept that they're superior to you in every way and do what you're ordered to do, they'll treat you like a favourite pet.

"Cross them, though, and you'll end up with a four foot spike up you, as they point out to you how it didn't have to be like this, if only you'd obeyed without question. The ones who aren't like this end up in the Security Directorate. They'll stake a few of you at random just to show what you can expect."

Should we be scared that in thirty years time all newborns will have already been genetically-tweaked for pro-sociality: a little more pleasant, a little less aggressive; a little more conscientious, a little less impulsive? Perhaps dial down the intelligence slightly for the masses - they're less-trouble happier that way?

Burning it up at the gym

A little while ago my sister asked me how many Calories I burned in my hour-long gym session. After a bit of totting up and estimating, I guessed around 600 kilocalories.

Recently Team Sky released power data for Chris Froome on the climb to La-Pierre-Saint-Martin, the decisive stage 10 of the 2015 Tour de France.

“It’s about a 15.3 km climb,” said Kerrison. “Around 41.30 [in duration]. Chris’s average for the whole climb was 414w,"

My '600 Calories over an hour' equates to 700 watts sustained. Gosh, I'm better than Chris Froome!

---

Time for a more accurate estimate. The aerobic machines give a semi-accurate account of Calories burned, but the resistance machines are more problematic. I spend 22 minutes aerobically exercising and around 28 minutes on the resistance machines and was assuming roughly equal energy expenditure.

But Lance Armstrong's former website begs to disagree:

"The exact number of calories burned during strength training workouts depends on intensity, time and your body composition. According to the Harvard Medical School, on average, caloric burn ranges from 90 calories per hour of moderate training by a 125-pound person to up to 266 calories per hour of vigorous effort by a 185-pound person."

I'm 70 kg = 154 pounds, and I think I'm doing vigorous exercise. On that basis, and scaling, I'm burning only 90 Calories on strength training.

---

So, putting it all together (and adding a minute recovery time after each hard exercise):

• Cross-trainer: 80 Calories (five minutes: 2 x 90 secs hi-intensity)
• Rowing machine: 68 Calories (five minutes: 3 x 60 secs hi-intensity)
• Bike: 58 Calories (five minutes: 3 x 60 secs hi-intensity)
• Treadmill: 44 Calories (4 minute warm-down at the end on 10%, ~6 km/hr).

My aerobic total = 250 Calories in 22 minutes - average power of 870 watts (no way!). *

About half the time on the first three machines is high-intensity but the average power overall seems way too high. Still, the Calorie estimate is not out of line with this LiveStrong estimate.

According to this website, averagely-fit people can produce sustained power at 3 watts/kg, which for me means 210 watts, with shorter-duration power 30% higher, say 280 watts (240 kcal/hr).

Perhaps I'm not burning as many Calories aerobically as I think I am!

Now add in the 90 Calories from resistance training (which over 28 minutes gives an average power of 200 watts - sounds about right).

So my grand total is at most 340 calories burned at the gym.

That's breakfast accounted for.

---

*  See this update.

"Armed Insurrection"

People often complain that Marx, Engels and Lenin had little to say about Communism - what would this utopian society be like? As a revolutionary marxist in my early twenties, I was more interested in the practical business of the prior overthrow of capitalism.

I read about the great controversies in the Second International: those who argued for a peaceful road to socialism exploiting bourgeois democracy vs. those like Lenin who said that you might win the government but the state would fight back. Lenin proved his point in the October Revolution in Russia and later, to my excitement, I discovered that the Third International, the Comintern, had written this practical manual. See also this review.

Sadly, I could never afford it.

I was reminded of all this watching the main-stream media (MSM) reacting to Jeremy Corbyn and Marine Le Pen .. and to a lesser extent, Donald Trump ('Muslims') and Tyson Fury.

When faced with challenging opinions outside the liberal orthodoxy, my former trotskyist self would argue that the bourgeoisie goes through five stages:

1. Ignore them*
2. Attempt to ridicule them
3. Threaten them with civil war
4. Sabotage them
5. Deploy the military in a coup.

We already saw an endless series of stupid gibes at Corbyn. Today it's the turn of Marine le Pen's Front national to be ridiculed for only getting 40% of the vote (more than UK election winners generally achieve) and losing in the face of a manoeuvre by the French establishment parties, the Socialists and Republicans.

It's telling that the intellectual case for bien-pensant capitalism is apparently so weak that the battle of ideas can't be won on a level playing field. That's what comes of denying reality I suppose - or maybe we should elect genetically-engineer a new people.

The Draka got there first, with Homo Servus. **

---

* See also 'Repressive Tolerance'.

** On this topic see Ken Macleod's good-to-middling novel 'Intrusion'.

In which the vole traverses a CTC (Vole #4)

So here's the story so far.

On Friday morning (Dec 11th) at around 5.30 am the BadgerCam first sees the vole waltzing around our kitchen. Clare moves furniture, mops floors and leaves doors open - we hope it has escaped.

Saturday morning at 4 am the revitalised BadgerCam catches the vole again, brazen as ever. We dig out the trap-refuge and bait it.

Saturday night at 10.33 pm the trap has worked! We video the vole and it is released outside the house. I set up the BadgerCam once again, expecting nothing but languid cat pictures.

Sunday morning at 5.05 am, the camera shows the (selfsame?) vole skating around the kitchen again, followed an hour later by the cat taking an early morning stroll.

What???

So last night (Sunday) the trap-refuge was baited again with delicious bread-and-butter, and scraps of date. The camera was again set.

This morning? One video of the cat checking out its reflection in the cat-flap cover at 6 am, no skating vole, the vole-trap empty and untouched.

What???

Our best scientific theory suggests that the vole executed a 'closed timelike curve' in our kitchen at around 5.30 am Sunday morning, shortly after being videoed for the last time. It was then whisked backwards in time to 10.30 Saturday night, at which point it entered the vole-trap and was duly captured, videoed and released outside.

If this theory is correct, the vole-trap tonight will catch nothing, and the camera tomorrow (Tuesday) morning will show no more than the preening cat. And I'll be on the phone to CERN.

More to come ... .

Update: Tuesday morning Dec 15th. Just watched Maj. Tim Peake blasting into space .. oh yes, the vole. Nothing at all, no clips, on the BadgerCam this morning. A quiet night then. Looked behind the tumble dryer, its presumed 'nest' - no droppings. We're going to declare the kitchen vole-free.

In which the vole toys with us (Vole #3)

Much excitement last night as we prepared to retire. The vole retreat appeared to have done its work:

As Clare placed the box in the bushes outside we reviewed the situation. This vole was one of the smartest and most alert we've ever had. Thank God we were now clear of it!

The BadgerCam was left in place in the kitchen overnight - just to be sure. A few moments ago I checked and this is what I found (just after 5 am).

The sleepy (and thoroughly useless) cat appears an hour later, languidly grooming itself. What are we to do? The trap-retreat is drying downstairs and will be re-baited shortly.

It's playing with us!

We trapped this animal at 10.30 pm last night. How come at 5 am it (or a friend) is still skating around our kitchen, ignoring our sleeping cat? What is it with this animal?

Oops! (Vole #2)

With new batteries, our Badgercam (the Ltl Acorn 5210A trail camera) was deployed again in the kitchen last night. The cat appears in early clips, languidly wandering to the cat flap, staring at it, then narcissistically grooming himself. After midnight he appears to retire to his electrically-heated cat basket for a long sleep.

Just after 4 am, a number of clips catch our new kitchen resident. This clip (be sure to watch the whole thing - patience!) is typical.

We have now deployed the vole-trap-refuge, baited with nut fragments and buttered bread. Perhaps tonight will be the night?

The kitchen at night (Vole #1)

The badger-cam, so successful earlier this year, has been brought out of hibernation. It's not totally working properly - I blame the used Duracell AA batteries I put in - always the cheapskate.

So I'm not getting the 30 second video clips I was hoping for, more like three seconds; today I'll change the batteries.

Anyway, to test the Ltl Acorn trail camera, I put it on the kitchen floor last night, mostly to see whether alien cats were stealing our own animal's night time snacks. So there are, of course, many three-second micro-clips like this:

And then at 5.29 am I see this.

As I type, Clare is in the kitchen, moving furniture ... .

---

I was reviewing the 24 or so clips this morning when I came to the one below. I was sure it showed Clare leaving the kitchen at 3.54 am - no doubt after snacking or something. I immediately confronted her:

"The camera shows you popping down to the kitchen in the middle of the night!"

She emphatically denied it but I was adamant. This got her musing - had she been sleep walking?

"Go look for yourself!" I replied in triumph.

(You can slo-mo by dragging with the mouse yourself - the first half-second is what convinced me.)

When we looked together, the scales fell from my eyes.

Never ask me to be a witness to anything, OK?

Emergent Spacetime

An extract from this book - (publisher, you have no idea how naff that front cover is).

"“Spacetime can’t be fundamental,” says the theorist Nima Arkani-Hamed. “It has to come out of something more basic.”

This thinking completely inverts physics. Nonlocality is no longer the mystery; it’s the way things really are, and locality becomes the puzzle. When we can no longer take space for granted, we have to explain what it is and how it arises, either on its own or in union with time.

Clearly, constructing space isn’t going to be as straightforward as melding molecules into a fluid. What could its building blocks possibly be? Normally we assume that building blocks must be smaller than the things you build out of them. A friend of mine and his daughter once erected a detailed model of the Eiffel Tower out of popsicle sticks; they hardly needed to explain that the sticks were smaller than the tower.

When it comes to space, though, there can be no “smaller,” because size itself is a spatial concept. The building blocks cannot presume space if they are to explain it. They must have neither size nor location; they are everywhere, spanning the entire universe, and nowhere, impossible to point to. What would it mean for things not to have positions? Where would they be? “When we talk about emergent space-time, it must come out of some framework that is very far from what we’re familiar with,” Arkani-Hamed says."

Emergent spacetime is a hot topic. Relativity assumes spacetime as a prior manifold and imposes geometry upon it. Quantum theory knows nothing - ab initio - about spacetime; its setting is a high/infinite dimensional complex vector space known as Hilbert space.

How are the two reconciled? Physical observables such as spatial position (momentum, energy, spin state are others) define coordinate systems (sets of basis vectors) within Hilbert space. It seems that Hilbert space is more fundamental than the spacetime we find ourselves in, but how do we get our perceived universe out of quantum theory? A unified theory needs to tell us but no compelling narrative has yet emerged.

I'm hoping this book can bring me up to date (in a sort of, a bit like, resembling kind of way).

---

A review from Backreaction (which de-risked this purchase for me).