Darel Rex Finley in 888

Free Will and Population Statistics

2008.02.22   prev     next

IN my previous article, “Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza,” I touched on the subject of population statistics and what they mean for the idea of individual free will. Here I intend to expand on that subject and analyze it more precisely.

Let’s look at an abstract choice, A versus B, that can be made on an individual-by-individual basis. If this decision is controlled by the individual’s free will, what should that look like in population statistics? I submit that it should look like a 50-50 split:

50%
50%
Figure 1

To be truly free, free will must be unpredictable. For example, suppose the statistics with regard to the A-B decision are like this:

100%
Figure 2

In that case, there is no free will, at least when it comes to choosing between A and B. There still might, hypothetically, be free will with regard to other decisions that we make, but for this particular decision we do not have free will. Everyone chooses B because we’re simply hard-coded to do so. An example of that kind of decision would be eating dirt versus not eating dirt, or drinking Drano versus not drinking Drano. It’s just not human nature to eat dirt or drink Drano; we don’t have a choice in the matter.

This is true even if someone, somewhere, has actually eaten dirt or drunk Drano:

99.99%
Figure 3

In that case, we could say that perhaps one person in a million has a free choice to eat dirt, but almost everyone does not.

Back to a generic choice: What if the statistics show this:

10%
90%
Figure 4

In that case, we could say that perhaps 20% of the population has free will with regard to this (A-B) decision — half of them (10%) choose A and the other half (10%) choose B. The remaining 80% of the population has no free will and must choose B every time.

Note, however, that this is not the only interpretation of Figure 4. It could be that there is no free will at all with regard to decision A-B: 10% of the population, due to the peculiarities of their DNA and their best learned information, must choose A, and the other 90% must choose B. But, if free will does exist for this decision, it is held by, at most, 20% of the population as described in the above paragraph.

Now let’s apply this analysis to the gender-violence statistic. (I’m making up the exact percentages arguendo.)

F
violence 
nonviolence 
99.9%

M
violence 
10%
nonviolence 
90%

Figure 5

If virtually 0% of females choose to engage in violence (combat or assault), but 10% of males do, what does this mean with regard to free will? It means that virtually all females do not have free will when it comes to this particular decision. And at most, 20% of males do.

Now let’s examine the reason that this is so:

F   
not caughtcaught
violence bad worse
nonviolenceOK
Figure 6

For virtually every female, the decision is a no-brainer: Violence, whether she gets away with it or not, is less desirable (due to her genetic preferences) than nonviolence. So for females, being violent is in the same no-free-will category as eating dirt or drinking Drano.

M   
not caughtcaught
violence cool! bad
nonviolenceOK
Figure 7

Many males doubtlessly share the Figure 6 situation with females. But a large percentage of males are described by the Figure 7 diagram immediately above. Now, it’s not a no-brainer. Should he commit act(s) of violence and hopefully get away with it, which for his particular genetic preferences would be fun; better than a life of nonviolence? Or should he choose the nonviolent life, to avoid imprisonment? Perhaps he has free will to choose?

Al
not caughtcaught
violence WAY cool! kinda bad
nonviolenceOK

Bob
not caughtcaught
violence kinda cool VERY bad
nonviolenceOK

Figure 8

Perhaps he doesn’t. If, like Al above, he has a strong genetic preference to commit violence, and believes (whether correctly or not) that he has a high probability of getting away with it, and for whom imprisonment is only a relatively minor negative as compared to not going to prison (perhaps he has been in prison before, and his life outside prison is in a bad neighborhood with little money), then the decision might be a no-brainer just as it is in Figure 6.

Or, if like Bob above, he has a weak genetic preference to commit violence, and believes (whether correctly or not) that he has a low probability of getting away with it, and for whom imprisonment would be a huge negative as compared to not going to prison (perhaps he has never been imprisoned or even jailed before, and his life outside prison is in a good neighborhood with plenty of money), then the decision would also be a no-brainer.

What delicate balance between these competing factors must exist in an individual before his decision to be violent or nonviolent becomes, even hypothetically, “free?” What percentage of the population lives in such a precisely balanced state? 0.001%?

Why Advocate For Free Will?

When advocates of free will, such as D’Souza, argue that virtually everyone has free will in virtually every decision they make, they are directly implying that we have free will to choose against our own desires and knowledge. And not just when choosing to eat dirt, drink Drano, or throw microphones across the room (see previous article) — when making any decision for which our desires and knowledge indicate that path B should be taken instead of A, D’Souza would have us believe that we are “free” to choose A.

Why would D’Souza (or anyone, for that matter) try to convince people that they are “free” to choose against the option pointed to by their desires and knowledge? Choosing against our desires is a recipe for unhappiness. Choosing against our knowledge is a path to chaos and mass destruction. Why would D’Souza push us in the direction of unhappiness and destruction?

The answer is to be found in D’Souza’s arbitrary assignment of activities to the categories of “free” and “not free.” D’Souza takes constructive activities (building universities and holding intellectual debates in them) and arbitrarily files those activities into the category of “things free will allows you to do.” Simultaneously, he takes destructive activities (massacres) and arbitrarily files them into the category of “things free will allows you to avoid.” So, to D’Souza, free will means building and attending universities, and refraining from going on massacres. An individual without free will, he wants us to think, would be more likely to avoid universities, and to go on killing sprees.

But you could just as easily (and as arbitrarily) assign the activities to the categories in the opposite manner as D’Souza, and wind up thinking that free will means avoiding universities and going on killing sprees. And, in fact, that interpretation is probably more in line with many young people’s vision of freedom, in that doing what society wants you to do (conforming) is considered by them a failure to be free.

D’Souza, I think, is simply hoping to encourage people to be productive (and non-destructive) by telling them that they are “free” if they do. This religious solution to malcontents and massacres has, I believe, been very helpful in centuries past. But today, with mature travel and communications technologies, it just doesn’t work any more — people know about all the wild and weird variety of religions in the world (even without Dennett’s proposed religion class). If you want your children to get a college degree, and to refrain from killing random strangers, you will need to come up with more practical reasons for those choices than “you’re not really free without them,” or “you’ll go to hell without them” (or be “separate from God” as D’Souza waters it down).

And if persuasion doesn’t work — and many times it simply won’t — society must continually refine its systems of force, deterrence, and detection against those individuals who, if not stopped, will be destructive. This, I think, is actually good news. Saying that a mass-murderer chose “freely” to carry out his mission is to say that we can’t predict such events, and must simply resign ourselves to live with them (perhaps installing metal detectors and armed guards everywhere). Recognizing that the mass-murderer did not freely choose his act is the first step toward finding out why he did it, and how others like him can be stopped.

 

Update 2008.02.25 — “The majority of males (as implied by Figure 5) share the Figure 6 situation with females. But a significant percentage of males” changed to “Many males doubtlessly share the Figure 6 situation with females. But a large percentage of males”.

 

Update 2008.04.14 — Interviewer questioning Richard Dawkins, as quoted at Uncommon Descent:

I think there is an inconsistency and I hoped you would clarify it ... [Y]ou seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that.

Dawkins responds to this with, in my opinion, a rather weak answer that I would summarize as, “That’s a tricky question and I’m not sure what the answer is.” I have a better response:

What reason do we have to classify “taking credit for books you write” under the heading “things that free will allows you to do” instead of under “things free will allows you to avoid”? Why can’t a deterministic universe include humans that take credit for the books they write? Why can’t determinism require Dawkins to take credit for his books, just as the interviewer thinks it might require him not to?

It’s a totally arbitrary assignment, just like the one D’Souza makes (see above).

 

Update 2008.05.09 — Here’s another, perhaps better way of making the point. There are two ways to define “taking credit”:

1. If “taking credit for writing a book” means “I wrote this book. My nextdoor neighbor didn’t write it. My best friend didn’t write it. The barista at my coffee shop didn’t. I did.” — then Richard Dawkins can take credit for writing his books.

2. If “taking credit for writing a book” means “I am the ultimate, originating source of most, if not all, ideas and information in this book.” — then Richard Dawkins cannot take credit for writing his books.

Notice that both of the above statements are correct irrespective of whether there is such a thing as human free will. So determining whether Dawkins should take credit for his books is simply a function of what it means to “take credit” (1 or 2), and is not a function of whether or not humans have free will.

It is also not a function of whether we live in a 100% deterministic universe — a designer could conceivably intervene in this universe to create humans (who otherwise could not have come into existence), but those humans, ever since, have operated in a strictly deterministic fashion as they were designed to.

The religious right, and much of the ID movement’s membership, has a hang-up about free will somehow being required, for human thought and action to be legitimate. This hang-up has no logical foundation — it springs, I believe, from the emotional desire to be free.

 

Update 2008.05.28 — The term “choose” can be understood similarly:

Definition A: To “choose” means to logically analyze options with the knowledge and preferences in one’s brain, determine which will be most likely to satisfy those preferences, then attempt to bring that option to fruition.

Definition B: To “choose” means to select which option to pursue, in a way that is not dictated by the knowledge or preferences in one’s brain, and in fact is free from the dictates of any deterministic process.

Free-will advocates equivocate between definitions A and B when they say that their daily choices (A) prove that they have free will (B), and when they say that if we didn’t have free will (B) then there would be no point in doing anything (A).

 

Update 2008.06.27 — Fascinating research into this very subject.

 

Update 2008.07.19 — If there’s no such thing as free will, then yes, as D’Souza points out, you can accurately say, “My neurons made me do it.” OK. But if there’s no such thing as free will, then “my neurons made me do it” is just a fancy way of saying, “I made myself do it,” or, “I did it” — or even, “I chose to do it.”

D’Souza wants the phrase, “My neurons made me do it” to mean, “Something other than myself took away my choice, so it’s not my fault.” If, however, the built-in preferences and analytical abilities realized by the neurons of a human brain are “my choice,” then, “My neurons made me do it” really means, “I chose to do it.”

 

Update 2008.08.19 — Even more fascinating research into this subject.

 

Update 2009.01.01Fascinatinger and fascinatinger...

 

See also:
Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused
&
What Free Will Is Really About

 

prev     next

 

 

Hear, hear

prev     next

Best Recent Articles

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Features (Regularly Updated)

A Memory of Gateway — news chronology of Apple’s ascendancy to the top of the technology mountain.

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux and Silly iPad Spoilsports — amusing litanies of industry pundits desperately hoping the iPhone and iPad will go away and die.

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents — general anger at Apple’s gi-normous success.

RSS FEED

My books

Now available on the iBookstore!

   

Links

Daring Fireball

The Loop

RoughlyDrafted

Macalope

Red Meat

Despair, Inc.

Real Solution #9 (Mambo Mania Mix) over stock nuke tests. (OK, somebody made them rip out the music — try this instead.)

Ernie & Bert In Casino

Great Explanation of Star Wars

Best commercials (IMO) from Superbowl 41, 43, 45, 46, and 47

Kirk & Spock get Closer

American football explained.

Sonos and Opalum — awesome sound stuff I saw at CEDIA.

TV: Better Call Saul; Homeland; Survivor; The Jinx; Breaking Bad; House of Cards; Inside Amy Schumer

God’s kitchen

Celebrity Death Beeper — news you can use.

Making things for the web.

My vote for best commercial ever. (But this one’s a close second, and I love this one too.)

Recent commercials I admire: KFC, Audi

Best reggae song I’ve discovered in quite a while: Virgin Islands Nice

Pinball Arcade: Unbelievably accurate simulation of classic pinball machines from the late ’70s through the ’90s, with new ones added periodically. Like MAME for pinball — maybe better.

d120 dice: You too (like me) can be the ultimate dice nerd.

WiFi problems? I didn’t know just how bad my WiFi was until I got eero.

Favorite local pad thai: Pho Asian Noodle on Lane Ave. Yes, that place; blame Taco Bell for the amenities. Use the lime, chopsticks, and sriracha. Yummm.

Um, could there something wrong with me if I like this? Or this?

This entire site as a zip file — last updated 2017.09.08

Previous articles

The Ultimate, Simple, Fair Tax

Compassion and Vision

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

The Caveat

Superb Owl

NavStar

Basic Reproduction Number

iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won

Delusion Made By Google

Religion Is A Wall

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Michigan Wolverines 2014 Football Season In Review

Why There’s No MagSafe On the New Mac­Book

Sundar Pichai Says Devices Will Fade Away

The Question Every Ap­ple Naysayer Must An­swer

Apple’s Move To TSMC Is Fine For Apple, Bad For Samsung

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Die Trying

Merger Hindsight

Human Life Decades

Fire and the Wheel — Not Good Examples of A Broken Patent System

Nobody Wants Public Transportation

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

Ode To Coffee

Starting Over

FaceBook Messenger — Why I Don’t Use It

Happy Birthday, Anton Leeuwenhoek

Standard Deviation De­fined

Not Hypocrisy

Simple Guide To Pro­gress Bar Correctness

A Secure Backdoor Is Feasible

Don’t Blink

Predictive Value

Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory

SSD TRIM Command In A Nutshell

The Enderle Grope

Aha! A New Way To Screw Apple

Champagne, By Any Other Maker

iOS Jailbreaking — A Perhaps-Biased Assessment

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents

Before 2001, After 2001

What A Difference Six Years Doesn’t Make

Stupefying New Year’s Stupidity

The Innovator’s Victory

The Cult of Free

Fitness — The Ultimate Transparency

Millions of Strange Dev­o­tees and Fanatics

Remember the iPod Killers?

Theory As Simulation

Four Analysts

What Was Christensen Thinking?

The Grass Is Always Greener — Viewing An­gle

Is Using Your Own Pat­ent Still Allowed?

The Upside-Down Tech Future

Motive of the Anti-Ap­ple Pundit

Cheating Like A Human

Disremembering Mi­cro­soft

Security-Through-Obscurity Redux — The Best of Both Worlds

iPhone 2013 Score Card

Dominant and Recessive Traits, Demystified

Yes, You Do Have To Be the Best

The United States of Texas

Vertical Disintegration

He’s No Jobs — Fire Him

A Players

McEnroe, Not Borg, Had Class

Conflict Fades Away

Four-Color Theorem A­nal­y­sis — Rules To Limit the Problem

The Unusual Mo­nop­o­list

Reasonable Projection

Five Times What They Paid For It

Bypassable Security Certificates Are Useless

I’d Give My Right Arm To Go To Mars

Free Advice About Apple’s iOS App Store Guidelines

Inciting Violence

One Platform

Understanding IDC’s Tablet Market Share Graph

I Vote Socialist Be­cause...

That Person

Product Naming — Google Is the Other Microsoft

Antecessor Hypotheticum

Apple Paves the Way For Apple

Why — A Poem

App Anger — the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Marco Arment Doesn’t See

Apple’s Graphic Failure

Why Microsoft Copies Apple (and Google)

Coders Code, Bosses Boss

Droidfood For Thought

Investment Is Not A Sure Thing

Exercise is Two Thirds of Everything

Dan “Real Enderle” Ly­ons

Fairness

Ignoring the iPod touch

Manual Intervention Should Never Make A Computer Faster

Predictions ’13

Paperless

Zeroth — Why the Century Number Is One More Than the Year Number

Longer Than It Seems

Partners: Believe In Ap­ple

Gun Control: Best Ar­gu­ments

John C. Dvorak — Translation To English

Destructive Youth

Wiens’s Whine

Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

What Windows-vs.-Mac Actually Proved

A Tale of Two Logos

Microsoft’s Three Paths

Amazon Won’t Be A Big Winner In the DOJ’s Price-Fixing Suit

Infinite Sets, Infinite Authority

Strategy Analytics and Long Term Ac­count­a­bil­i­ty

The Third Stage of Computing

Why 1 Isn’t Prime, 2 Is Prime, and 2 Is the Only Even Prime

Readability BS

Lie Detection and Psy­chos

Liking

Steps

Microsoft’s Dim Pros­pects

Humanity — Just Barely

Hanke-Henry Calendar Won’t Be Adopted

Collatz Conjecture A­nal­y­sis (But No Proof; Sorry)

Rock-Solid iOS App Stability

Microsoft’s Uncreative Character

Microsoft’s Alternate Reality Bubble

Microsoft’s Three Ruts

Society’s Fascination With Mass Murder

PlaysForSure and Wikipedia — Revisionism At Its Finest

Procrastination

Patent Reform?

How Many Licks

Microsoft’s Incredible Run

Voting Socialist

Darwin Saves

The Size of Things In the Universe

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy That Wasn’t

Fun

Nobody Was In Love With Windows

Apples To Apples — How Anti-Apple Pundits Shoot Themselves In the Foot

No Holds Barred

Betting Against Hu­man­i­ty

Apple’s Premium Features Are Free

Why So Many Computer Guys Hate Apple

3D TV With No Glasses and No Parallax/Focus Issues

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

Gridlock Is Just Fine

Sex Is A Fantasy

Major Player

Why the iPad Wannabes Will Definitely Flop

Predators and Parasites

Prison Is For Lotto Losers

The False Dichotomy

Wait and See — Windows-vs-Mac Will Repeat Itself

Dishonesty For the Greater Good

Barr Part 2

Enough Information

Zune Is For Apple Haters

Good Open, Bad Open

Beach Bodies — Who’s Really Shallow?

Upgrade? Maybe Not

Eliminating the Im­pos­si­ble

Selfish Desires

Farewell, Pirate Cachet

The Two Risk-Takers

Number of Companies — the Idiocy That Never Dies

Holding On To the Solution

Apple Religion

Long-Term Planning

What You Have To Give Up

The End of Elitism

Good and Evil

Life

How Religion Distorts Science

Laziness and Creativity

Sideloading and the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Snell Doesn’t See

Long-Term Self-De­lu­sion

App Store Success Won’t Translate To Books, Movies, and Shows

Silly iPad Spoilsports

I Disagree

Five Rational Coun­ter­ar­gu­ments

Majority Report

Simply Unjust

Zooman Science

Reaganomics — Like A Diet — Works

Free R&D?

Apple’s On the Right Track

Mountains of Evidence

What We Do

Hope Conquers All

Humans Are Special — Just Not That Special

Life = Survival of the Fittest

Excuse Me, We’re Going To Build On Your Property

No Trademark iWorries

Knowing

Twisted Excuses

The Fall of Google

Real Painters

The Meaning of Kicking Ass

How To Really Stop Casual Movie Disc Ripping

The Solitary Path of the High-Talent Pro­gram­mer

Fixing, Not Preaching

Why Blackmail Is Still Illegal

Designers Cannot Do Anything Imaginable

Wise Dr. Drew

Rats In A Too-Small Cage

Coming To Reason

Everything Isn’t Moving To the Web

Pragmatics, Not Rights

Grey Zone

Methodologically Dogmatic

The Purpose of Lan­guage

The Punishment Defines the Crime

Two Many Cooks

Pragmatism

One Last Splurge

Making Money

What Heaven and Hell Are Really About

America — The Last Suburb

Hoarding

What the Cloud Isn’t For

Diminishing Returns

What You’re Seeing

What My Life Needs To Be

Taking An Early Re­tire­ment

Office Buildings

A, B, C, D, Pointless Relativity

Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved — Where Is ID Going?

If You Didn’t Vote — Complain Away

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux

What Free Will Is Really About

Spectacularly Well

Pointless Wrappers

PTED — The P Is Silent

Out of Sync

Stupid Stickers

Security Through Nor­mal­cy

The Case For Corporate Bonuses

Movie Copyrights Are Forever

Permitted By Whom?

Quantum Cognition and Other Hogwash

The Problem With Message Theory

Bell’s Boring Inequality and the Insanity of the Gaps

Paying the Rent At the 6 Park Avenue A­part­ments

Primary + Reviewer — An Alternative IT Plan For Corporations

Yes Yes Yes

Feelings

Hey Hey Whine Whine

Microsoft About Microsoft Visual Microsoft Studio Microsoft

Hidden Purple Tiger

Forest Fair Mall and the Second Lamborghini

Intelligent Design — The Straight Dope

Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Ex­am­ples

Zealots

Entitlement BS

Agenderle

Mutations

Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

The Museum Is the Art

Polly Sooth the Air Rage

The Truth

The Darkness

Morality = STDs?

Fulfilling the Moral Du­ty To Disdain

MustWinForSure

Choice

Real Design

The Two Rules of Great Programming

Cynicism

The End of the Nerds

Poverty — Humanity’s Damage Control

Berners-Lee’s Rating System = Google

The Secret Anti-MP3 Trick In “Independent Women” and “You Sang To Me”

ID and the Large Had­ron Collider Scare

Not A Bluff

The Fall of Microsoft

Life Sucks When You’re Not Winning

Aware

The Old-Fashioned Way

The Old People Who Pop Into Existence

Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

The Designed, Cause-and-Effect Brain

Mosaics

IC Counterarguments

The Capitalist’s Imaginary Line

Education Isn’t Eve­ry­thing

I Don’t Know

Funny iPhone Party-Poopers

Avoiding Conflict At All Costs

Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused

“Reduced To” Ab­sur­dum

Suzie and Bubba Redneck — the Carriers of Intelligence

Everything You Need To Know About Haldane’s Dilemma

Darwin + Hitler = Ba­lo­ney

Meta-ware

Designed For Combat

Speed Racer R Us

Bold — Uh-huh

Conscious of Con­scious­ness

Future Perfect

Where Real and Yahoo Went Wrong

The Purpose of Surface

Eradicating Religion Won’t Eradicate War

Documentation Overkill

A Tale of Two Movies

The Changing Face of Sam Adams

Dinesh D’Souza On ID

Why Quintic (and Higher) Polynomials Have No Algebraic Solution

Translation of Paul Graham’s Footnote To Plain English

What Happened To Moore’s Law?

Goldston On ID

The End of Martial Law

The Two Faces of Ev­o­lu­tion

A Fine Rec­om­men­da­tion

Free Will and Population Statistics

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — Dennett

The Non-Euclidean Ge­om­e­try That Wasn’t There

Defective Attitude Towards Suburbia

The Twin Deficit Phan­toms

Sleep Sync and Vertical Hold

More FUD In Your Eye

The Myth of Rub­ber­neck­ing

Keeping Intelligent Design Honest

Failure of the Amiga — Not Just Mis­man­age­ment

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer = Be My Honey Do?

End Unsecured Debt

The Digits of Pi Cannot Be Sequentially Generated By A Computer Program

Faster Is Better

Goals Can’t Be Avoided

Propped-Up Products

Ignoring ID Won’t Work

The Crabs and the Bucket

Communism As A Side Effect of the Transition To Capitalism

Google and Wikipedia, Revisited

National Geographic’s Obesity BS

Cavemen

Theodicy Is For Losers

Seattle Redux

Quitting

Living Well

A Memory of Gateway

Is Apple’s Font Rendering Really Non-Pixel-Aware?

Humans Are Complexity, Not Choice

A Subtle Shift

Moralism — The Emperor’s New Success

Code Is Our Friend

The Edge of Religion

The Dark Side of Pixel-Aware Font Rendering

The Futility of DVD En­cryp­tion

ID Isn’t About Size or Speed

Blood-Curdling Screams

ID Venn Diagram

Rich and Good-Looking? Why Libertarianism Goes Nowhere

FUV — Fear, Uncertainty, and Vista

Malware Isn’t About Total Control

Howard = Second Com­ing?

Doomsday? Or Just Another Sunday

The Real Function of Wikipedia In A Google World

Objective-C Philosophy

Clarity From Cisco

2007 Macworld Keynote Prediction

FUZ — Fear, Uncertainty, and Zune

No Fear — The Most Important Thing About Intelligent Design

How About A Rational Theodicy

Napster and the Subscription Model

Intelligent Design — Introduction

The One Feature I Want To See In Apple’s Safari.