A big leap foward for artificial intelligence may be about to occur:
http://ping.fm/liuJm

My biggest fears for america

Fear number one: that we will be manipulated into believing that the confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction have "changed the rules" in a way that makes basic tenants of our democracy obsolete. The creation of a class of people called "enemy combatants" which are not in our criminal justice system or considered prisoners of war seems in this spirit. This construct seems clearly designed to allow our government to do things in an arbitrary manner. The notion of a boundless/endless war (remember that we are still officially a "nation at war" according to Barak Obama)  seems inherently dangerous and also in this spirit.

Fear number two: our ever decreasing attention span and superficiality will leave us vulnerable to such manipulation. Arguments in favor of things like torture can typically be made quickly and often employ fear. Counter arguments often require thought and contemplation.

Very shortly after 9/11 the Bush administration and conservatives in general began talking a lot about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD). The weapon employed on 9/11 was a box-cutter. Clearly the focus on Weapons of Mass Destruction (which continues to this day) was opportunistic. In my opinion, the purpose of focusing on Weapons of Mass destruction was to bolster an agenda. An agenda that pre-dated 9/11. An agenda that included invading Iraq and undermining liberals domestically. A "nation at war" that faces "weapons of mass destruction" does not have the luxury to indulge in things like health care reform or carbon offsets. 9/11 was a huge opportunity for the right and they took every ounce of advantage of it that they could. It's striking how the right has equated 9/11 with Weapons of Mass Destruction at an emotional level.

Irony creeps in here like it does in many other historical cases: As of this posting (April 2009) the godfather of 9/11 (Osama Bin Laden) is still alive and Al-Qaeda is more powerful than they were on September 10 2001.

Could it be because we allowed ourselves to be diverted?

Intelligence

I have some thoughts relating to the posts below on torture - and intelligence/information theory.

Basically if you are at the point where you might consider torture you have already screwed up in a major way.

Lets take 9/11 and the aftermath.

9/11 could have been stopped if U.S. government agencies had simply communicated better. Isn't a better approach to the whole problem of terrorism simply better intel? Why aren't we focusing on that.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Lets go back to the 'nuclear bomb hidden in a populated area' thought experiment so popular with conservatives. Think for a minute what that would take to steal a nuclear weapon and transport it and hide it in a populated area. A typical nuclear weapon weighs hundreds of pounds or more. See:
http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

Even if you could penetrate a secure facility, steal a nuclear weapon (or buy one on the black market) AND transport something that big and bulky into a city and hide it you have the problem of detonating it. Not easy. This is the biggest problem by far. See:
http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Pal.html

Two different codes have to be entered just to be able to arm a bomb with a special secret and very specific electronic signal. Then internal "environmental sensing devices" prevent detonation unless the bomb is actually delivered to the target. It actually measures "acceleration curves, temperature, pressures, etc." and  "Unless these effects are detected in the proper sequence, and fall within specified parameters, the weapon will not detonate." 

It would take a serious engineering effort to rip apart a bomb and take those safeguards out and not destroy the thing or kill yourself in the process. I'm guessing that you would have to basically rebuild it. 

If our intelligence services are so poor that a bomb could be stolen successfully AND the major engineering effort necessary to rebuild the bomb so it could be detonated went unnoticed AND the transport of the bomb to a major population center went unnoticed then god help us.

In a darwinian sense you would almost deserve to be blown up. Evolution would favor a society with a more robust defense system.

Lets get more Arabic speakers in the CIA. How about speakers of ALL major languages. Lets continually improve spy drones. Lets employ computer horsepower. There are lots of things we can do before an armed/capable nuclear bomb is ever placed in a populated area that would prevent that from ever happening in the first place.

And the bar for a biological attack is even higher. It's not clear if anyone is technically capable launching a biological attack that would not "blow back" on the attacker. Lets not be fooled by the canard that the terrorists "do not care about dying" so such a biological attack would not be problem for them. As individuals they don't care about dying but as a group they very much want to survive. The goal of Al-Qaeda is the destruction of the west and to "rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Ideology. They very much want to survive as a group.

To frustrate their aims we must do a better job of intel and not get ourselves into a position where torture is even worth thinking about.

 

My letter to relevant radio on the morality of torture

Executive summary:
The "ticking time bomb" justification of torture rests on an article of faith: namely that correct information will necessarily be forthcoming in response to torture. This is a false assumption and hence cannot be used to justify torture.

Details:

Ticking time bomb scenario 1:
A person has been captured who knows the location of a nuclear bomb which will explode in 24 hours. Do you torture him to get the location?

Ticking time bomb scenario 2:
A person has been captured who has the combination to a locking device that controls a nuclear bomb. The bomb is set to go off in 24 hours but if the correct combination of numbers are entered the bomb will be disarmed. Do you torture him to get the combination?

It was an article of faith in the early middle ages that torture would result in confessions only from the guilty and hence accurately differentiate between the guilty and innocent. A similar article of faith is necessary if one is to accept the "ticking time bomb" justification: namely that a person will necessarily give correct information in response to torture. Research indicates that this is not the case. A excellent resource on torture is the book "Torture and Democracy" by Darius Rejali. I would strongly urge you to read it.

Equally damning to the "ticking time bomb" justification of torture is basic Information Theory. Using (very elementary) Information Theory you can (logically/mathematically) prove that if you know the person who you are interrogating has the correct information (location or combination to a lock) then you must know/have that information yourself in the first place. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory and the "Intelligence (information gathering)" link. This may sound a bit academic but it's important. The point is that unless you already know the key facts (which makes torture is a moot point), you are necessarily dealing with uncertainty. Uncertainty like: does this person really know where the bomb is? Do we even have the correct person? Given this uncertainty you are vulnerable to misinformation or deception. The person could give you an incorrect location sending you a a wild goose chase and then claim the bomb must have been moved. How would you know the truth. Even worse is the "combination to the lock" scenario. Maybe the combination of numbers he gives does not disarm the bomb - but instead causes it to explode.

Is it wise to take the word of someone who is trying to kill you?  

For these kinds of reasons torture is one of the poorest methods of gathering reliable tactical information.

In my opinion the "ticking time bomb" scenario is really a way to frame this issue in a way designed to manipulate people into accepting torture. Unless you think it through carefully its seems like it provides justification. This kind of frame is designed to induce fear or even a "fight or flight" type of thought process that short circuits rational thought. Notice that this particular framing of the issue typically uses words like "terrorist" and "nuclear". These kinds of words are designed to factor out coherent thought and induce a "panic" type of reasoning. That does not lead to good decisions. 

Throughout history torture has been (successfully) used as a vehicle of control and domination and to extract statements that can be used for propaganda purposes. That is all it's good for. It has been corrupting to those who engage in it. There is a terrible intangible price to pay for using it. We should not be fooled or frightened into using it now.

It looks like the real purpose of the torture licensed by the former administration may have been to generate propoganda statements linking Saddam Hussein/Iraq etc. to Al Queida - as opposed to gaining tactical inofmation:
http://ping.fm/NpA0S

The american public deserves to have this investigated.

As I noted on my blog last week, history (and information theory) have shown torture to be basically unreliable in generating tactical information.

But is effective in corecing people into saying what you *want* them to say.

Looks like Ping works :)
I updated my image on Tweeter...looks OK but I'm not sure the effect I am looking for comes through.

Am testing a cool new tool that Larry found. If I set things up right this should go to twitter and my blog simultaneously.

Information theory, human psychology and torture

Lets start with the now famous thought experiment that some claim "justifies" torture in at least some cases:

A captured terrorist has placed a nuclear time bomb in a populated area. If you torture him he will give up the location allowing you to save the lives of millions of people. Isn't it ethical in this case to torture him?  

The problem with this argument is information theory which undermines it's basic premise:  how did you know the terrorist has placed a nuclear bomb in a populated area in the first place and how do you know who he is and where to find him. Knowing all that means you are well on your way to finding the bomb yourself without any additional direction from him. Is there any evidence that torturing him will result in the extraction of a correct answer vs. a deliberately wrong or deceptive answer that wastes your time when you are well along the way to finding the bomb in the first place? The answer from the experts is no: a tortured person will say say something, but whether or not it's correct is highly speculative.

The psychology of someone who would put a nuclear bomb in a populated area would have to be pretty hard core. I do not think it would be prudent to base any short term actions on *anything* he says - under duress or not. Such a person would probably say nothing or give you deliberately false information.  Maybe if you had the luxury of time so that you could give him successively worse rounds of torture in response to him giving you incorrect information you might have a slightly better chance of (eventually) finding the bomb via torturing him. Except that as time moves on his information becomes stale (cohorts would probably move the bomb knowing one of them has been compromised) and in this thought experiment we do NOT have the luxury of time, if the bomb is not found right away it explodes. Not only is torture ineffective in this circumstance it's imprudent. It's imprudent to base anything on what the terrorist says. It's better to use the same information that you used to find him to find the bomb.

Here is another thought experiment -one to be presented to (typically conservative) people who throw out the thought experiment above: lets assume that tripling the spending on food stamps in year X will cause an increase in work and tax revenue from recipients in subsequent years that more than makes up for the spending on the food stamps in year X. Wouldn't it make sense in this case to triple food stamp spending? The answer would inevitably be "I don't agree with the premise that giving people more food stamps will increase their work ethic."

Likewise the premise that a terrorist would give the correct locaction of the bomb under torture is a false premise.

The three reasons to torture

I have done a little research today on the history of torture.

In modern times torture has been used for three purposes:
1) To extract public confessions or political statements favorable to the torturers which would then be used for propaganda purposes. This was done by the Russians in the 1930's and North Vietnamese in the Vietnam war.

2) To control a population or group of people. Basically make examples of some "disobedient" individuals so as to influence others of that group to "behave." The Nazi's did this in Eastern Europe and France against partisans and various south and central american countries did this kind of thing in the post WW II time frame (the "dirty war" in Argentina is a prime example). The British did some of this in Ireland.

3) To attempt to extract tactical military intelligence. Both Germany and Japan did this during WW II.

There is no evidence that 3 works. From Wikipedia: "There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.

The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future". The report is currently hosted in the FAS website. http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf"

It's also highly debatable whether torture "works" for the second purpose (controlling a population) in other than the short run. It seems to me that in most cases the torturing entity suffered a backlash and torture turned out to be counter-productive.

For the first purpose descibed above (extracting a statment to be used for propoganda purposes) I guess you could say torture "works" because numerous statements *have* been extracted in this manner. But is this the kind of business anyone really wants to be in? 

Torture

I almost cannot believe what I am seeing on the news today. The issue is not whether the federal laws and international treaties were broken. The issue is not whether torture "works" or not. We used to be a nation of laws and a nation with a strong moral compass - and look where we have gone. If the criteria is whether it works or not then you can justify ANYTHING. "Hey, it works even better if you get his wife and kids and torture them in front of him." Maybe it would work if you started cutting off his fingers one at a time. Where does it stop?

There are solid moral and practical reasons not to torture.  1. Enemies will use this as a recruitment tool. 2. US servicemen will be tortured in return. 3. Use of torture destorys US credibility on human rights and damages our reputation as a leading democracy. 4. It is immoral. Period.

Some today were defending torture on the grounds that it did not violate any law or treaty. Whether or not that is really the case, I do not think a piece of paper is necessary to tell  what's right from wrong! Torture is wrong. Period. There are some things that are just indefensible, things like slavery, genocide and TORTURE. To me, people who would have us sink down to this level are the biggest cowards of them all.

And even the issue of whether torture "works," is highly debatable -putting it's use on even shakier footing. It's well established that through torture you can make anyone say anything you want them to say. For this reason it's a tool that has been used extensively for propaganda throughout history. Witness the "confessions" of U.S. servicemen held captive in Vietnam. Or "counter-revolutionary" Russians in the 1930's. Torture worked wonders in those cases. It generated invaluable propaganda. As to whether it's useful in extracting key tactical information, that's another matter altogether - and there is considerable evidence that it is NOT useful in this regard. Whatever information a captive has becomes stale fast. Is whatever info you *might* get worth the huge intangible loss generated by using torture? Remember that when you use torture you have flushed your own morals down the toilet and morphed into a likeness of your enemy.

Also noteworthy is the fact that many of the same people who were lying about WMD are now saying basically "trust us" about the efficacy of torture. "Trust us, it generated useful information,", Dick Cheney says, "we can't tell you what that information is due to national security issues but we CAN tell you that it did produce useful information" he says. Sounds very similar to "trust us, Iraq DOES have WMD, we can't tell you exactly HOW we know, but we CAN tell you they DO have WMD" line that proceeded the invasion of that country and was exposed as false after.

The question is: are we a nation with a solid moral compass and a nation of laws or are we a nation that arbitrarily does things because "they work".

 

Should there be limits on pay

I'm on on one of my pet peeves again.

I just read this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30226310/

which discusses Captains Sullenberger and Phillips.

It talks about a "triumph of credentialed, licensed leadership."

and

"They were brave, capable, shrewd and deeply knowledgeable. They saved, respectively, 155 passengers on a plane that landed in the Hudson River last January, and 19 American shipmates trapped by pirates on a cargo vessel last week in the dangerous waters off the coast of East Africa."
.
"they had prepared all of their lives for their fateful moments of crisis in the air and on the sea."
.
"Sullenberger had an astonishing academic and military record at the Air Force Academy and had earned two graduate degrees in addition to logging 19,000 hours of flight time. He had a lifelong interest in gliders, and while a giant Airbus is by no means a glider, he in effect glided his passengers to safety."
.
"Phillips was regarded as both gifted and studious."
.
Their successes, miraculous as they were, were not accidents. These were real leaders.

and so forth.

According to the Air Line Pilots Association, their average major* airline member Captain is 50 years old, with 18 years seniority and makes $182,000 a year. A non-major airline Captain is 41 years old with 10 years of seniority and makes $70,000 a year.

The average ALPA First Officer member at a major airline is 43 years old with 10 years of seniority and makes $121,000 per year, while an ALPA non major First Officer is age 35 with 3 years of service and makes $33,000.
Source:
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=how+much+money+do+airline+pilots+make&page=1&qsrc=2352&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightlevel350.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D3227

So *maybe* Sullenberger makes 200K

The wages for captains are highest on the largest ships. In 2004 the median wage for captains was $24.20 per hour. The most experienced captains—captains of large container ships, oil tankers, or passenger ships—earned more than $100,000 per year.
Source:http://www.ask.com/bar?q=salary+of+sea+captains&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcareers.stateuniversity.com%2Fpages%2F821%2FMerchant-Marine-Captain.html

So perhaps Phillips makes 125-150K

If that is enough for them why do we have to Wall st. pay bankers, CEO's (and others) orders of magnitude more. Can *anyone* say with a straight face that they are worth more than those two?

In my opinion, the people making the really big money in our society (and maybe throughout history) are doing so via taking advantage of some one or some thing. Monopoly power (Microsoft). Wall St. bankers function as gatekeepers to the capital markets and have enormous oligopoly power . "Customers" typically come to doctors and lawyers under duress, hat in hand. These professions seem to have no problem taking advantage of the situation. In America we do not have much of a history of financial restraint.

I wonder if society will become ever more polarized unless we put some limits on compensation on those who have power over their customers. I know it sounds crazy to suggest that there should be limits on pay for doctors or lawyers, CEO's etc. but what's the alternative if they don't show restraint. And as I said above, how can *anyone* claim with a straight face they are worth more than Sullenberger or Phillips?

Lets say I'm in the wilderness and encounter a person dying of thirst and I have excess water. Is it ok for me to demand a good chunk of the man's entire net worth before I give him a sip? He will of course agree to pay whatever I ask. The man is under duress. The medical and legal professions both regularly encounter "customers" who are under duress. This puts them in a position of power over the customer. Could this perhaps be a reason why medical costs have risen so much in recent decades? This is a tough problem.

How to stop the hijackings in Somolia - fast

I was reading about these hijackings yesterday and fired up one of my favorite applications - Google Earth.

I had some idea of the geography of Somalia (dry, sandy, low) but had never looked at Somalia in detail. I checked a map which showed the approximate location of the hijacked ship "Maersk Alabama", and went to approximately that location in Google Earth and then made a bee-line for the Somali coast. Where you are at now is a couple of hundred miles northeast of Mogadishu. For those readers who have Google earth it might be fun to open it up and follow along with what I did at this point.

The coastline is dry and pretty linear. No trees, very few natural harbors. Empty. No signs of humans or civilization and no place to hide. So I'm thinking: were the hell are these pirates coming from. After about 10 minutes of searching (moving northeast along the cost) I find a "town" that Google identifies it as "Eyl." You can see a some buildings on a small bluff over the beach and a bunch of what looks like fishing boats close to the water. A larger settlement is maybe 1/2 mile up a river.

I do a Google search on "Eyl Somolia." Bingo. Do the Google search yourself. It is described as a "Pirate city." Lots of stuff.

Here's the thing: this "city" is very small and isolated. It can't have a population of more than several thousand. There is NOTHING nearby. Empty stretches of desert in all directions. No jungle. No marshland, NOTHING.

When the media talks about piracy coming from the "lawless coast of Somalia" that's really a misstatement. It' coming from Eyl. A look at the map and a read of what's going on make that clear. I have found only one other place along this coastline that could support pirate activity. An interesting place, which I will talk about in a minute but in the mean time lets get back to Eyl.

It seems to me that a U.S. Navy ship anchored off of Eyl could stop pirate activity cold. Better yet rotate a U.S. navy vessel and navy vessels of other nations that are affected by piracy. Make it international and package it as "protection" for the fishing industry of Eyl so the residents there can save face. Observe EVERY boat leaving Eyl. Use technology. Radar, night vision, etc. etc. Somalia has no sitting government so permission is not needed. Deliver food as part of the program.

When I look at this kind of thing I really wonder about the competence of our leaders (political and military). We hear talk about "patrolling" the waters off of "Texas sized" Somalia and how difficult that could be and hear it presented as some sort of "general" problem "in the region". But it's not. It's concentrated in ONE PLACE and that place is out in the open and in the middle of nowhere.

Now back to the interesting place a bit up the coast from Eyl - at location 8 40 52 34 north, 50 21 50 30 east. What's at this location is a very small settlement with a number of small boats in and around the water at the mouth of a river and a couple of larger boats offshore. The larger boats offshore may be fishing boats. They are the only boats I have seen so far that could possibly be used as "pirate mother ships". It's possible that this location also has pirate activity and that's what they are.

A bit further up the coast at 8 53 52 95 North, 50 26 49 47 East there are a few boats on the shore but no signs of any settlement so it's unlikely you could keep hostages there.

Point is there are VERY FEW places along this coast where piracy could be sustained. Eyl is pretty much it.

So why not go to the clear SOURCE of the problem: Eyl. Why not anchor ships about 200 yards offshore. Why not find out who is running this place and start a continuing dialog with them. The pirates cannot just "meld into the countryside" because there IS no countryside - it's open flat desert in one direction and ocean in the other.

When I see things like this I typically wonder about the competence (or veracity) of the leadership involved. If I could figure this out in an hour or so why couldn't they. Why not focus attention on the problem: the city of Eyl as opposed to the amorphous and difficult "lawless coast of Somalia", which is NOT the problem.  The remainder of the coast is empty!

Here are two good articles on Eyl:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/97287

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5183663.ece

Idea: automated medical checkups

Couldn't the process of medical check-ups be automated?

Think about what is done in your typical check-up:
- Your blood pressure is taken
- Your pulse is observed
- Your weight and height measured.
- The doctor looks in your ears, nose and throat.
- The doctor checks for swollen glands.
- Perhaps your temperature is taken.
- You tell him what is going on with you and he listens.
- If anything looks like it's a problem you schedule follow up tests or get referred to a specialist.

Couldn't most of this be automated? Blood pressure monitors are in many stores now.

What you would need is something like a glorified bathroom - perhaps connected with one of the new 'mini-clinics' that are sprouting up:
http://www.walmart.com/clinics?redirect_query=clinic

This bathroom/kiosk would have a blood pressure monitor, a scale, a camera or two (for ears, nose, throat exam maybe) and a few other automated devices. The user would pay a fee, (maybe $35 or so) and enter the room. A screen on the wall would have instructions on what to do. The process would go forward similar to a computer "wizard". At the end the data would be saved in some standard format accessible by the user on the web and available to the users doctor.

Some people (overly concerned with privacy perhaps issues perhaps) will probably not be interested in this.

Some sort of standard electronic medical records will need to be in place before this could really work.

Thoughts on the Chicago Olympic bid

Dear Lake Meadows Management,

I object to the "we back the bid" sign on the front of the 500 E. 33rd st. building.

I don't back the bid.

Many of us in the building do not back the bid

Yet the sign implies that we do.

I've had enough of my tax money being used to subsidize the elite and the rich - which is what this "bid" is proposing to do. It would also make considerable space and resources here on the south side off limits to regular people and instead the exclusive preserve of elite athletes and the rich insiders and celebrities close to them. The Pro-Olympic Flash presentation here: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/chicago-olympics-games-demonstration-protest-evaluation-committee.html
makes that abundantly clear. Statements like "through the broad plaza of their exclusive entrance the athletes will enter their own private world." make that clear. The entire Olympic Village will (of course) be off limits to regular Chicago residents. "Private Sky Terraces?" only for the athletes and the insiders. The "state of the art polyclinic?" that will not be for the health needs of south side residents. The "village center", which is the "great crossroads of our design?" It won't be a great crossroads that the residents of the south side can enjoy. The "promenade leading to the lakefront?". Like everything else, it will be for the exclusive use of the athletes and insiders. "The wide expanse of the village promenade will become a popular destination of it's own, putting athletes on a visual pedestal overlooking the lake". That pretty much sums this up. They are up on a pedestal and we pay for it.

No, I don't back the bid.

But the worst thing to me is yet to come: "their own private beach." Currently I am able to enjoy the lakefront unencumbered. I often ride my bike from here to 31'st st beach and then north to my office on the north side or south to promontory point or Hyde park. I won't be able to do that anymore. The plan will give much of space of the lakefront near here to exclusive use of the athletes and insiders. Us regular residents will be locked out.

I was watching the basketball game between Orlando and Cleveland the other night and the commentator mentioned that tthat Dwight Howard will be a "first team USA team player". Dwight Howard currently makes 17.5 million dollars a year (5 year contract at 87 million). My tax money will be going to further enrich Dwight Howard if this "bid" goes through. I don't think Dwight Howard needs my money. I think he has enough already.

I am every bit as opposed to my tax money going to bail out rich CEO's and Wall St. types but thats really another discussion. The common point is that somehow subsidizing (or bailing out) the super elite is often packaged as good or even necessary for the rest of us. I don't believe it. I don't believe it for one second. I think it's class warfare. Class war perpetrated by the elites on the rest of us.

Which gets us to the winners in this thing. Property owners (some of them anyway), people like Sam Zell and Oprah. The higher you go on the income/wealth/prestige scale the more likely you will be to come out a winner. The working poor are pretty much guaranteed to be losers. They stand to gain nothing, they won't be able to afford to see the events and they (like the rest of us) would be arrested if they tried to enter the Olympic Village. But their (sales) taxes will go to subsidize it.

Those of us who oppose this bid are not opposed to our city. We are not somehow "unpatriotic". Our attitude would be different if a) it did not need to be subsidized by tax money and b) it was not so narrowly focused on serving the needs of an elite group.

The Chicago Worlds Fair of 1893 comes to mind. Something like that would be great. No subsidy was necessary or asked for and the event was open to everyone. There was no private "olympic village", or "private beach" type things that were off limits.

Idea: cooperative writing

This is probably not original but here it is:

Two (or more) people combine to create a written work. Maybe one has good general ideas but his skill in creating excitement or suspense is not so great. Maybe another can take a story line and bring it to life. Maybe they could get together and use some computer tool. A website maybe where they could cooperate.

Magic

An article on urban rivers talks about using "carefully positioned blocks of stone as a way to improve the River Quaggy in London in the area where it is constrained between buildings."

This sounds boring, pedestrian and hardly in keeping with an attempt to do something "magical" which is what they are trying to do with this river.

But Magic itself is built on boring blocks. To perform classical stage magic requires flawless execution of what are each in isolation boring steps. Lots of practice is required to get each step perfected.

Does knowing this about stage magic eliminate it's value? I don't think so.

Deeper levels of magic are revealed. Simple well executed things can produce magical results.