What Really Matters

In these days of turmoil after the undoubtedly historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, whether you agree or disagree with the decision, either on legal or on moral grounds, it is important to keep one thing in mind. As a citizen of the United States, you have implicitly given yourself over to the secular, democratic law of the land. Yes, you could spend time fighting a presumable majority on this issue. Honestly, this amounts to a minor change in what should be a secularized bureaucracy, as legal “marriage” extends to medical, employment, tax, housing, legal realms, which should all be free of the effects of one contentious moral system in a country that prides itself on freedom of religion and so forth. The legal ramifications of the decision may also be troubling to you.

However, none of this matters. Seriously. The best we can hope for is that this decision will put to bed another of the various debates that have been distracting us from the real problems. Global warming, unregulated AI advancements, nuclear proliferation. Extreme biochemical engineering. Massive overpopulation. Unregulated nanotechnology. Space exploration and expansion policy. There are a huge number of threats in the near future which have the potential to wipe human civilization clean off the map. We need to make efforts NOW to make our civilization resilient to threats, and set ourselves up for long-term survival. We need to stop squabbling over social policies that honestly don’t matter all that much, and focus on the huge number of never-before-faced global issues before it is too late.

After all, stopping everyone from being wiped out by grey goo is the first step in evangelism.

Advertisements

Separating Science and Religion

I read this article for school:
Lightman’s The Accidental Universe

When asked to write an essay about it, this is what came out. I don’t normally post essays like this, but I’ve been meaning to write a post much like this for a while anyways, so it’s convenient.


Lightman descends into the realm of religion, masking his language with a thin film of scientific consideration, but none of its hard, decisive, rational edge. Lightman never even touches the basic principles of science, but uses philosophical arguments to parade a seemingly-scientific theory around.

Falsifiability is a method for evaluating scientific theories popularized by Karl Popper. It contends that a theory cannot be proved by showing evidence in favor of it. A theory may be shown to be strong if it can make empirically confirmable and correct hypotheses, but a theory can never be proved – only disproved. So to be a scientifically valid, a theory must have a way to be disproven (thus by not being disproven, it continues as the dominant theory). This is one of the problems with the multiverse theory, the theory of intelligent design, and even string theory: it is most likely impossible to disprove them. If an intelligent creator revealed itself, such a turn of events would not inherently make the multiverse theory wrong, per se (a multiverse theory can coexist with intelligent design). It would only make it irrelevant. Of course, this reveals an even bigger fundamental problem with those theories: they don’t explain the mechanics behind physical phenomenon in the traditional sense. Instead, they provide a framework of thought into which actual scientific theories can be slotted. But the multiverse theory is only one framework among many, and there is no way to show that one framework is strictly better than another.

Is it not just as reasonable, just as falsifiable (or not, as the case may be), to conclude that the universe as we know it is the only one, albeit a very lucky one? One could posit that it is indeed accidental. How does this postulate contend with the others on the battlefield of scientific thought? In some regards it may triumph over its opponents, because it relies on any contrary observation to disprove it, while both the multiverse theory and intelligent design can be valid even in the face of one or the other being true. So really, the Random Chance theory is more falsifiable, and thus more scientific.

But of course the Random Chance theory is completely unpleasing to the philosophical human mind. A much more palatable theory is the multiverse theory, which, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, slips in among the legitimate scientific advancements and completes a scientist’s world view satisfactorily. But is a scientist’s world view scientific? No. Science is a tool for developing a physically accurate view of the world, and we employ it because the human mind is not built to obey scientific rules. Our capacity for cognitive dissonance is astounding. Thus a scientist can in good conscience accept a non-scientific belief to assuage his existential conflicts by slathering the belief in the manner of other physics theories.
Another such unfalsifiable belief system is string theory. String theory is a self-consistent way of interpreting physical data using notions that fall out of mathematical equations but have no basis in experimental science. Indeed, string theory exists only as a way for some physicists and mathematicians to unify all of reality under some Platonic mode. But it is only that; a way to think about the universe, to help explain the Great Unexplainable, as Sax Russell calls it. String theory cannot produce hypotheses that can be tested to confirm the mode of thought. It can explain the observed, but only as well as previous existing theories. While it is nice that it can bring physical laws under a single wing, niceness is not a necessary quality of scientific theory. It is a subjective human measurement applied in the realm of philosophy.

Philosophy is not useless. It is a tool, like science, for examining the world. However, instead of measuring and describing physical phenomenon objectively, it takes human concepts or unimaginable realities (such as that beyond the realm of science) and compresses them down and creates a set of rules for the human mind to follow. It generates modes of thought that allow us to function and think about that which might otherwise turn us into quivering lumps of existential dread.

But assembling a philosophical system of thought only to pass it off as a product of science is dangerous. Besides preying on those incapable of evaluating the modes of thought on their own, it tricks the creator as well. Thus we can see the inevitable and unending conflict between the “rational” scientist and the “faithful” man of religion. Neither of them realizes that they are jousting with philosophical ideas, and as a result keeps hitting his opponent not at the weak spots, but at the bastions of his belief. The scientist calls his mode of thought “scientific truth” (a misleading term in and of itself), and the religious man calls his mode of thought “religion”.

Unfortunately for the world, nobody (certainly not the loud ones) seems to realize that science and religion are not diametrically opposed. Religion is not taken entirely on faith; while it does depend on some unfalsifiable core, it builds up a philosophical belief system around that which, beyond the basic axioms, is self-consistent and pretty damn useful. The scientist, used to tackling scientific theories, thinks that by attacking the core tenets of religion, he can bring down the entire system. But the core is unfalsifiable, so the methods of science are useless. Science and religion shouldn’t even overlap in their realms of explanation. In truth, they don’t. But unfalsifiable philosophy is given the title of science, and physical explanations are given the title of religion, so two incompatible systems are faced against each other. It would be better for everyone if both sides retreated to their realm of the human experience, but since they won’t, we get tripe like Lightman’s essay.

Sim State

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while. This idea really started when I watched Day[9] play the new Sim City, and then picked up Sim City 4 again. I wanted to create a game which brought the ideas of micromanaging infrastructure and government into a larger scale. The player would be able to control education, government type, military, trade, etc. Eventually it grew into a sort of “third-world country simulator”, since that seemed like the most interesting route to people I pitched the general concept to.

The basic premise is that you are the leader of a small country, recently put in power by a violent revolution. This country is located in a faux South or Central America, but there is also the possibility for having multiple templates: African, Southeast Asian, etc. The player can only really see the small land area he controls, plus some of the bordering sovereignties. There is no global map (and this isn’t a game about conquest), but there are references to current global institutions (or fictitious characterizations thereof) like the UN and US, or WHO, etc.

Winning the game means pulling your country out of poverty and onto the world stage. This requires many parts, including building infrastructure, establishing governmental rule, and appeasing the international community. However, the win condition is gaining control over every province in your nation. Control just means being the dominant power faction. Routes to control include stamping out resistance (militarily) and appeasing interest groups. Thus a large part of the game is balancing political control; keep the military leaders on your side, stop workers from striking, and stay elected. The last one may mean establishing a dictatorship, rigging elections, or spending a lot of resources maintaining public image.

At the start of the game, your country is poor and unequipped. There are two forms of currency: money, and international repute. International repute can be spent on relief or treaties; perhaps getting a foreign oil company to leave your country. On the other hand, if you drive out the oil company by force, some factions in your own country may approve, while the international community may impose sanctions. Similarly, if their are pirate along the coast, you could demand tribute or try to exterminate them at a potentially great cost. If the world catches wind that you are allowing pirates to operate, however, you will lose repute.

The other form of currency is money. A little macro-economics comes into play here, since you have to manage your currency (printing money), and real “world dollars”. Rapid inflation can be bad for your industries, but it attracts tourists (but only to good parts – nobody is going to visit the region controlled by drug cartels). Real dollars come from exports, mainly. One way to get a boost in the beginning of the game is to exploit your natural resources: cut down rain forests, strip mine mountains, etc. However, you have to establish a more mature manufacturing industry at some point, otherwise you will exhaust your resources and fall back down into poverty.

In terms of infrastructure the player has to build, the main forms are education and industry. Industry includes transportation networks and resource collection, as well as processing. Industry also means municipal improvements, since nice cities attract high-tech corporations and commercial companies. Another route to improving the quality of your workforce, reducing crime, and eliminating overpopulation is education. Building schools takes a lot of resources for little immediate payoff, but it will start to improve your country greatly. It is also a great way for dictators to indoctrinate the population.

Late-game opportunities may include hosting Olympic Games or researching nuclear technology.

As you can see, there is a lot of room for expansions; this is more of a framework for a game, rather than a fleshed out game idea. I know there are games like this, such as Tropico. I think this would be more political and deep than Tropico, but obviously I would aim to offer a different experience overall were I to build this.

Traditional Values

As you may have heard, Dan Cathy, president of Chic-Fil-A, came out and denounced same-sex marriage, citing support for the “biblical definition of a family”. As you can imagine, this turned into a huge media firestorm, which consequently got the fast food chain banned from Chicago. Then Santorum and Huckabee decided to get behind the company’s statement and declared a “Chic-Fil-A day”.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
-Dan Cathy

I believe the first thing to do when investigating this delicate situation is to look further into what exactly was said by Cathy. Most news sources are citing this interview. In it, Cathy states that the company is firmly based around Christian values. Just to clarify, I am totally on board with that. It’s pretty incredible that a huge company, especially a fast food chain, would have the balls to do that in this modern age of anti-Christian rage. Some examples of this support include being closed on Sunday and training employees in Christian values and excellent customer service.

While citing the Bible as providing a Christian definition of marriage is fine (it is quite clear on the subject that marriage is only between a man and a woman), I don’t think it should be used to dictate the law. And I really don’t think it is proper to cite the Bible as a reason against homosexuality. Not only is the good book’s stance questionable when it comes to gays, but it also has some other “values” that the company seems to disregard. Take for example, Leviticus 19:19.

“Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
-New International Version

Wat. Guess you’re going to Hell for wearing those polyester-cotton blends. In fact, it seems that Chic-Fil-A employee uniform shirts are 55/45 cotton/poly.

“…a deep blue, ¾-sleeve, 55/45 cotton/poly woven shirt with stain-protection and wrinkle-resistant treatments, and flat-front, 60/40 cotton/poly pants with soil-release properties.”
Nicole Rollender

And that chicken Chic-Fil-A is serving? Bet that was bred to be the meatiest chicken possible.

“We are proud to have many long-standing relationships with our chicken suppliers, who highly value their association with the family farms where the chickens grow. Often these farms are diversified – they raise a variety of crops and livestock. Our suppliers follow strict animal welfare and nutrient management practices.”
Chic-Fil-A’s website

But wait! Many, including myself, would argue that when Jesus makes the New Covenant, the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians. Ok, so that nullifies any argument made with the Old Testament. And by the way, those arguments tend to cite the destruction of Sodom and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination”
-Leviticus 18:22
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.”
-Leviticus 20:13

Ok, so where in the New Testament is homosexuality denounced? In fact, the subject is only mentioned in 3 passages: 1 Romans:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
-1 Corinthians 6:9–10, NRSV

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
-1 Timothy 1:8–11, NRSV

Two of these passages, specifically those in 1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy, only mention homosexuals in passing, if at all. The offending terms are placed in the middle of a generic laundry list of undesirable people. This is the equivalent of using the term “gang banger” to refer to any sort of any delinquent. Moreover, the translation of the Greek to “male prostitutes” and “sodomites” is questionable. Here I cite from William O’ Walker.

“The Greek word translated as ‘male prostitutes’ is the adjective malakoi (plural of malakos). This adjective means ‘soft,’ as in a ‘soft’ bed or a ‘soft’ pillow. When applied to people, it can mean ‘lazy,’ ‘self-indulgent,’ ‘cowardly,’ ‘lacking in self-control,’ and the like. When applied to males, it generally refers to what are commonly regarded as feminine-like ‘weaknesses:’ such men might be regarded as ‘soft,’ ‘flabby,’ ‘weak,’ ‘cowardly,’ ‘unmanly,’ or ‘effeminate.’ But to call a male ‘effeminate’ might or might not carry implications of homosexuality.”
The Fourth R

He goes on to explain how the terms “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” could be interpreted in many different ways.

People have assumed that malakoi does refer to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians primarily because the next term in the list is arsenokoitai (defined below)—the assumption being, of course, that the two words are somehow linked in meaning because they appear side by side in the list. This, however, is by no means necessarily the case. “The greedy” and “drunkards” are also juxtaposed in the list, and it would be difficult to see any link between them.

But even if malakoi and arsenokoitai are somehow linked in meaning, it is not at all clear just how arsenokoitai should be translated. It comes from two Greek words: arsen, which means “male” (as opposed to “female”), and koite which literally means “bed” but by extension can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse (like “going to bed” with someone). This would appear to suggest that arsenokoitai refers to males who “go to bed” with other males. But Dale B. Martin has pointed out that the meaning of a compound word cannot necessarily be determined by breaking it apart, looking at the meaning of each of its parts, and then simply combining these meanings to determine the meaning of the compound word. As an example, Martin cites the English word, “understand,” which has nothing to do with either “standing” or “being under.”

Numerous other examples could be cited, but I want to mention one that is closer to the topic under consideration. The word I have in mind is the vulgar term, “mother-fucker.” We know what this word means literally. But when people use it, they typically are not referring to someone who has sexual intercourse with his mother (or even with someone else’s mother). In fact, the word normally does not refer to sexual activity at all. The point is, however, that its original sexual meaning is often not apparent in its actual usage. And the same thing may very well be true of the Greek word arsenokoitai. It is a rare word. According to Martin, though, when the word does appear independently, it is typically found in conjunction not with sins of sexual immorality but rather with sins related to economic injustice or exploitation. … We often use sexual language to talk about things that have nothing to do with sex. For example, someone might say, “I really fucked up!” without having sex in mind at all. Or think about how we sometimes use the word “screw.” If I say, “I really got screwed on that business deal,” I’m not talking about sex, but I am talking about exploitation. … The bottom line is that we simply do not know what the word meant or how it was used in the first century.

In a way similar to how slave traders quoted parts of the Bible that, out of context or interpreted in certain ways, seemed to legitimatize their actions, those opposed to homosexuality or homosexual marriage could easily use these passages to support their advocation of the “traditional” family.

Leaving those passages aside for now, let’s examine what Paul says about homosexuality in his letter to the Roman church. In short, homosexuality is not mentioned as a sin, per se, but as punishment by God for idol worship. I’m not sure what the Bible has to say about Masochism, but if it does forbid the enjoyment of punishment, then why are anti-gay groups only targeting gays? They should also go after the greedy (recording industry), gossips and slanderers (news corporations), and God-haters (anti-Christian groups). Also those who disobey their parents.

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

-1 Romans 1:21-32, NIV

As for the argument that homosexuality is somehow a “sin against nature” or otherwise unnatural, I find it interesting that such an argument would be made in the first place. First of all I’m not even sure what that is supposed to mean; would a proponent of that argue that anything specifically human is a sin against nature? In that case, homosexuality wouldn’t even fall under that category, since animals also show homosexual behavior. On the other hand, technology, speech, and writing actually ARE sins against nature.

But why hold up animals as a standard for behavior? Animals eat their children sometimes, but we don’t do that. At least not usually. Well, think about it this way: animalistic behaviors in humans can be divided into three categories; necessary, unnecessary, and harmful. Necessary behaviors are things like breathing, eating, pooping, etc. Unnecessary are things like playing. Both of these categories are legal. Harmful activities, like killing, raping, cannibalism, and infanticide are, with the last one being an exception, illegal. Since innocent homosexual behavior is neither harmful nor necessary, I see no reason to think it any more unnatural than playful behavior.

Of course, I digress. When Dan Cathy said that his company adheres to Christian values and he supports the “biblical” definition of a family, he wasn’t denouncing homosexuality (although I’m sure he has some beef with it). After really thinking about the controversy, I don’t actually see any conflict of interest.

All Cathy is saying is that he and his company stand behind one definition of a term. The government might stand behind a different definition. Activists may support another. The point is that if I announce “I believe that marriage can only happen between two people of the Caucasian race, regardless of gender” (which I don’t), that doesn’t mean that I can legally discriminate against married couples that fit a different definition. In fact, what I think doesn’t matter to anyone, until I make actions based on those opinions.

Obviously, whether or not the government thinks gay marriage should be legal is a MUCH bigger deal. And while we’re on the subject, I might as well give my two cents.

The only reason marriage exists in the legal system at all is because of tradition; but while its there, it might as well serve its purpose. When you think about it, the only possible reason the government should care about whether two people are symbolically bound together in an arbitrary ceremony is that children are born afterwards. The difference in taxes and other legal differences as a result of marriage are merely helpers to this function; marriage is not for the taxes, the taxes are for marriage. The government needs to ensure that children are being raised in an environment that will not turn them into criminals.

Based off of this definition of why legal marriage exists, one could make the argument that gay marriage should not be legally recognized because two people of the same sex cannot produce children. But by the same logic, a marriage in which one or more of the partners is sterile should also not be recognized legally. But of course both straight and gay married couples have the option of adoption. Following this line of reasoning to its conclusion, allowing gay marriage but disallowing gay adoption is paradoxical and a waste of government resources. The two rights should, by necessity, come bundled together.

Thus, the only remaining line of defense for those opposed to gay marriage and/or adoption would be that children raised by a gay couple are somehow deficient when compared to those raised “traditionally”. In response, I quote Judith Stacey, a professor at USC and holder of the Streisand Professorship in Contemporary Gender Studies. From the sound of the article the quote comes from, homosexual parenting is actually beneficial in many ways.

“We found that despite the ‘no differences’ mantra, many studies do report evidence of some intriguing differences, and even of some potential advantages of lesbian parenthood. A difference is not necessarily a deficit.”
Judith Stacey

Zones of Thought

I recently finished a book by Vernor Vinge called Children of the Sky. It was the sequel to A Fire Upon The Deep. They are part of a continuing series called the Zones of Thought series, which has overtaken the Known Space (by Larry Niven) series as my favorite series of books.

The series is based on the premise that the galaxy is divided into these so-called “Zones of Thought”. They dictate the level of automation and intelligence physically allowed in that region of space. They are an inherent property of the galaxy, but their boundaries can shift, either slowly over thousands of years or rapidly in “zone storms”. They radiate out from the center of the galaxy.

A map of the Zones of Thought

A map of the Zones of Thought

The zones are as follows:

At the center of the galaxy are the Unthinking Depths. Intelligent thought is impossible, and computers fail. Humans turn into animals.

Beyond the Depths is the Slow Zone. The speed of light is the ultimate cap on speed and hyper-intelligence is impossible. Computers cannot become sentient.

Above the Slow Zone is the Beyond. In the Beyond, faster-than-light travel and communication is possible, and automation becomes much more capable. The Beyond falls into layers; FTL drives increase in capability as you get “higher”. Machines built in the High Beyond will work less efficiently or fail in the Low Beyond. Most of interstellar civilization exists in the Beyond.

The highest Zone is the Transcend. The Transcend is the subject of much study in the Beyond in the field of Religion. This is because the Transcend is populated by hyper-intelligences called Powers that are essentially gods. Products manufactured in the Transcend are often sold to the Beyond, such as anti-gravity fabrics, machinery, etc. Powers sometimes interact with Upper Beyond civilizations by sending “emissary ships”.

A Fire Upon The Deep is based around a malevolent Power that is awakened from an archive in the Low Transcend that is the subject of a human expedition. The Blight, as it is called, proceeds to wipe out local civilization in the High Beyond. Only a single human ship escapes from the “High Lab” in the Low Transcend, and it carries a portion of the archive that, if reunited with the Blight, will destroy it. The Blight recognized this (it had been defeated in a similar way long in the past) and set out to destroy the Countermeasure.

Another human group figures this out and, with some help from another Power that is subsequently murdered (nobody is quite sure how Powers work) by the Blight, escapes the Blight’s invasion and travels to a world at the bottom of the Beyond where the ship carrying Countermeasure has taken refuge. The Blight pursues them, causing havoc in that part of the galaxy.

In the end, Countermeasure uses some strange Transcend technology to harness the system’s star (it actually goes dark for a little) and cause a massive Zone storm that extends the Slow Zone to engulf the world and the Blight (30 light years out from the world) and much of the Beyond in that part of the galaxy. This traps the Blight and the humans in local space, giving the humans a century or more to build up the technology of the civilization on the planet before the Blight builds ramscoops and comes to destroy its nemesis once and for all.

What really interested me about the book was the world the humans become stranded on. It is inhabited by an interesting alien race. Each alien is composed of 4-8 individual “members”, and so they are referred to as packs. Each member is a dog-like animal that communicates with the others using “mind sounds”. This raises some interesting consequences; for one, two packs cannot get extremely close to each other without losing consciousness; it is very hard for packs to work collaborate and thus it is hard for new technology to be made. Their civilization has been stuck in a medieval state for a long time. Packs also live for a very long time. They replace old members either through inbreeding (within their own pack) or by breeding with another pack. The only way for a pack to die is if all of the members die, which pretty much only happens in combat (or sickness). Packs can also split into two or merge. Also, each member contributes different aspects of personality to the pack. This means that packs can be planned, called broodkenning. Essentially, people can be “built”. Of course, when the first four humans land on the planet, all hell breaks loose.

The four humans from the High Lab are a family, with a small boy and a adolescent girl. The two parents are killed in an initial attack launched by the militaristic northern kingdom the humans set down in. A pair of traveling packs see the attack and kidnap the wounded girl, taking her back to a more understanding, peace-loving kingdom (ruled by “Woodcarver”) in the south. The boy is captured by the northern “Flenserists”. He doesn’t realize that they are malicious though, and ends up befriending a pack that was built entirely from puppies (usually such packs become autistic). The two are manipulated by Flenser and start communicating with the human rescue expedition. Woodcarver’s kingdom has a dataset from the girl, and they use it to build cannons and prepare for war with Flenser in the north. However, Flenser has the support of the rescue party (since they don’t know that Flenser is evil). Eventually Woodcarver defeats Flenser in a battle just as the rescue party arrives.

Vernor Vinge always creates interesting aliens. There are others in his series, such as the Spiders in A Deepness in the Sky and the Skroderiders (sentient plants, essentially), who are space traders in A Fire Upon The Deep. I draw a lot of inspiration from his stories, both in character design and plot creation.

%d bloggers like this: