Source code control (SCC), versioning, and the all-inclusive "software configuration management" (SCM) are hard things to do well. Most programmers think they know a "good" way of doing these things, and most firms think they have "good" systems, but I think that most firms and individuals actually aren't very good at these things.
Although I am a self-styled expert on this topic, I really am more of an evangelist for a certain approach to the problem than I am an actual expert. After all, I don't have 10,000 hours / 10 years of experience in this topic alone (well, actually, I have more like 20 years of thinking about the problem, but nowhere near 10,000 hours).
I bring this topic up because I was thinking about it today in the context of open-source development. When you have an open source team, one essential role on the team is that of release manager. Another important role is that of what we might call "technical director" or "architect." How an open source project team structures its source code control has a major impact on who contributes what. If, for example, untested code can be submitted, then a lot more innovative ideas can pop into the codeline, and a big firm might be able to get their bugs fixed by submitting them and watching for other contributors to find the problem. If, on the other hand, a single person has to moderate all submissions, for example, then to what extent is the project really open source? It is, in a way, but it's only as open as the moderator decides to make it.
Another way to ask the question is, "is it free as in speech?" If so, then how do you do versioning? If not, then how is it free software/open source and not simply, "a voluntary project managed by one or more individuals?"
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Obama needs an IT guy with a brain
I unsubscribed from the Obama campaign emails today. I just couldn't take it anymore. Today I got an email signed by both "Jon Carson" and "David Plouffe" in a confusing email-within-an-email-yet-not-a-forward that started with:
"I've never asked you to make a donation before."
While this may technically be correct, because I've never heard of Jon Carson before, the only reason I'm on the mailing list is that I made a donation. I have received other solicitations via the same mailing list, as well. It's ridiculous that they either a) don't realize who they're emailing or b) don't care.
Also, I'm unsubscribing for another reason. A few days ago I got an email suggesting that I register to vote if I wasn't already. The Obama campaign had created a little portal thing that advertised itself as a one-stop shop for registering, signing up for an absentee ballot, and getting information. I decided to make sure I was signed up for an absentee ballot. However, the Obama website claimed (no matter how I searched) that I was not registered. I suspected that I was, but before I had a chance to follow up, the next day, my voter info booklet thing arrived. So, I was registered (as I thought, as a Republican).
I am not claiming that this tool was made to purposely manipulate, but the Obama campaign should at least ensure that their tools work right and don't either a) deceive or b) waste peoples' time.
My complaints have still not been answered by the Obama campaign, although I made one last attempt to vent my frustrations when giving the reason why I was unsubscribing from their email list.
"I've never asked you to make a donation before."
While this may technically be correct, because I've never heard of Jon Carson before, the only reason I'm on the mailing list is that I made a donation. I have received other solicitations via the same mailing list, as well. It's ridiculous that they either a) don't realize who they're emailing or b) don't care.
Also, I'm unsubscribing for another reason. A few days ago I got an email suggesting that I register to vote if I wasn't already. The Obama campaign had created a little portal thing that advertised itself as a one-stop shop for registering, signing up for an absentee ballot, and getting information. I decided to make sure I was signed up for an absentee ballot. However, the Obama website claimed (no matter how I searched) that I was not registered. I suspected that I was, but before I had a chance to follow up, the next day, my voter info booklet thing arrived. So, I was registered (as I thought, as a Republican).
I am not claiming that this tool was made to purposely manipulate, but the Obama campaign should at least ensure that their tools work right and don't either a) deceive or b) waste peoples' time.
My complaints have still not been answered by the Obama campaign, although I made one last attempt to vent my frustrations when giving the reason why I was unsubscribing from their email list.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Categorical Imperative and Moral Relativism
I have been trying now for several years to write some kind of essay explaining what I think is wrong with moral relativism as a philosophy. I don't think moral relativism is "incorrect" per se, but my instincts tell me that it is dangerous not to balance it with some belief in an absolute reality and an absolute morality. Suffice it for now to say that I think one ought to believe, paradoxically, in both the purely relative nature of reality as well as the purely, absolutely objective natural universe, and that only by holding this paradox in mind can one understand and participate fully in reality. Also, only by valuing both sides equally can one be a truly "moral" person.
My new plan of attack is to try to use Kant's categorical imperative as a wedge to crack open the hedonistic, lazy moral relativism that has grasped so many of my peers. Briefly stated, the categorical imperative is essentially this:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
This 'imperative' almost perfectly captures the paradox that I'm grappling with. It can be contrasted with 'hypothetical imperatives' like, "If I wish to stay cool, I should avoid the hot desert." The problem with moral relativism is that it puts things on equal footings that shouldn't be. All opinions are not equally valid, as long as a reason for them is hypothesized. One need not believe that everyone has a right to be heard, or that everyone's opinion is equally valid, to believe that all people are equal. The belief that we need to be more "the same" (that it's desirable for us to have the same material comforts, the same place in society, the same natural and unnatural advantages and opportunities) is a form of socially entropy that threatens to homogenize and thereby destroy society.
We need a categorically imperative approach to issues like equality, fairness, and justice in society. If we believed, essentially, that only those things which we could universalize could contain "moral" insights, then we would not impose the will of the majority, the popular sentiment, or any of the other adversarial notions of morality upon people.
An application of the categorical imperative might look something like this:
1) We shouldn't allow some killing of humans unless we would allow all people to kill. We don't want to allow all people to kill, because it violates our natural sense of what is right and wrong. Therefore, murder is generally prohibited. But what about killing in self-defense?
2) We refine the approach thus: We shouldn't allow killing unless it is justified. Then, self-defense, war, and execution all potentially have a place in our morality. But then, how do we justify killing?
3) We refine the approach further: Killing is justified when inalienable human rights such as life or liberty are taken away or threatened. We have thus defined categorical imperatives that life and liberty ought to be granted to all.
4) We have thus justified killing if it protects life or liberty. This allows us to make decisions like the decision to assassinate a butcher before he murders 100 people. We then run into problems about what is required to "prove" that he was going to kill 100 people. This eventually leads to further imperatives.
These issues are inherently "moral" issues, because we force ourselves to evaluate whether principles are universalizable or not. This approach admits both absolutism and relativism. Without both, we are making a system that only applies to half of life, or a system that does no more than say that if we believe something.
My new plan of attack is to try to use Kant's categorical imperative as a wedge to crack open the hedonistic, lazy moral relativism that has grasped so many of my peers. Briefly stated, the categorical imperative is essentially this:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
This 'imperative' almost perfectly captures the paradox that I'm grappling with. It can be contrasted with 'hypothetical imperatives' like, "If I wish to stay cool, I should avoid the hot desert." The problem with moral relativism is that it puts things on equal footings that shouldn't be. All opinions are not equally valid, as long as a reason for them is hypothesized. One need not believe that everyone has a right to be heard, or that everyone's opinion is equally valid, to believe that all people are equal. The belief that we need to be more "the same" (that it's desirable for us to have the same material comforts, the same place in society, the same natural and unnatural advantages and opportunities) is a form of socially entropy that threatens to homogenize and thereby destroy society.
We need a categorically imperative approach to issues like equality, fairness, and justice in society. If we believed, essentially, that only those things which we could universalize could contain "moral" insights, then we would not impose the will of the majority, the popular sentiment, or any of the other adversarial notions of morality upon people.
An application of the categorical imperative might look something like this:
1) We shouldn't allow some killing of humans unless we would allow all people to kill. We don't want to allow all people to kill, because it violates our natural sense of what is right and wrong. Therefore, murder is generally prohibited. But what about killing in self-defense?
2) We refine the approach thus: We shouldn't allow killing unless it is justified. Then, self-defense, war, and execution all potentially have a place in our morality. But then, how do we justify killing?
3) We refine the approach further: Killing is justified when inalienable human rights such as life or liberty are taken away or threatened. We have thus defined categorical imperatives that life and liberty ought to be granted to all.
4) We have thus justified killing if it protects life or liberty. This allows us to make decisions like the decision to assassinate a butcher before he murders 100 people. We then run into problems about what is required to "prove" that he was going to kill 100 people. This eventually leads to further imperatives.
These issues are inherently "moral" issues, because we force ourselves to evaluate whether principles are universalizable or not. This approach admits both absolutism and relativism. Without both, we are making a system that only applies to half of life, or a system that does no more than say that if we believe something.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Leadership
Over the last several months I have been evolving a new theory of what leadership is. The theory goes something like this:
Leadership is choosing the time and place to take risks, and the size of the risk to take. This definition is not totally satisfactory to me, though, because I think that taking risks is still too easy of a thing to do. If someone is well versed in probability, they can effectively figure out times and places where the reward:risk ratio is best, and that would constitute leadership. But, this seems too simple.
In fact, I would argue that leadership is more than just taking risks. Leadership is doing things that are unpopular. Defining unpopular here is difficult, and it's more than simply the fact of something enjoying less than 50% support. For lack of a better one, I have decided to use the Rousseauian term General Will to express "the wants of the masses." The leader goes against the General Will. Doing this well is the stuff of history.
Leadership is choosing the time and place to take risks, and the size of the risk to take. This definition is not totally satisfactory to me, though, because I think that taking risks is still too easy of a thing to do. If someone is well versed in probability, they can effectively figure out times and places where the reward:risk ratio is best, and that would constitute leadership. But, this seems too simple.
In fact, I would argue that leadership is more than just taking risks. Leadership is doing things that are unpopular. Defining unpopular here is difficult, and it's more than simply the fact of something enjoying less than 50% support. For lack of a better one, I have decided to use the Rousseauian term General Will to express "the wants of the masses." The leader goes against the General Will. Doing this well is the stuff of history.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Caesar
"Caesar could brook no superior, Pompey no equal." - Lucan
And thus the consulate was torn asunder. And thus the world was changed forever.
"Let the die be cast."
And thus the consulate was torn asunder. And thus the world was changed forever.
"Let the die be cast."
Arm Strength is for Suckers
I have been watching NFL Football my whole life, and much of that was spent watching great quarterbacks such as Montana and Young. I have devised a new formula for predicting quarterback success. This formula is meant to purposely downplay such traits as arm strength, height, passing accuracy, and other factors. Basically, once a QB reaches the pro level, it's not minor variations in arm strength that correlate with success. Instead, I propose these factors:
- Backing up a veteran QB for 2-3 years. This time is spent practicing, understanding the offsense, and building confidence and maturity. QBs who just jump right in seem to struggle mightily.
- Being tough. Good quarterbacks are tough and have no fear. You don't have to be the fastest guy to scramble for gains, but you have to be tough as nails and unafraid.
- Establishing comeback potential. Once everyone believes that you can put up points in a hurry, two things change. First, the defense plays you differently. Second, your guys don't give up on you.
I assert these are the three measures of a QB that best predict success.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Aaron Rodgers vs. Alex Smith
I was afraid to say it at the time, and I am obviously a 49ers fan, but it is now abundantly clear that the 49ers should have picked Aaron Rodgers instead of Alex Smith. This is true for two reasons:
- The 49ers have wasted $50M on Smith
- Rodgers went to Cal.
Pakistan: With Us or Against Us?
For the last year or two, it has been very hard to figure out to what extent Pakistan legitimately wants to crack down on terrorism within its borders. Specifically, I'm talking about the al-Qaeda style terrorists who seem to be mostly up in the mountainous areas near the Afghanistan border, not the separatist or religiously minded terrorists largely targeting India and living in the Kashmir.
Musharraf essentially threw himself in with the US after 9/11, got a lot of support from the US, survived several assassination attempts, and did help hunt some terrorists, for a while. Toward the end of his presidency, though, it was unclear to what extent he was:
- Unable to stop terrorists from basing their operations in Pakistan - Did the various security apparati of Pakistan still really work for him? Did he fully control the army? Did the army have the capacity to battle the Taliban/Al-Qaeda types up in the hostile mountain regions?
- Unwilling to stop terrorists from operating in and from Pakistan - Did he fear that he would lose his grip on power if he pushed too hard against the militants?
- Pretending to stop the terrorists - Was he never doing anything more than appeasing the Americans and being obsequious in order to gain our financial and military support?
- Aiding the terrorists - Was (or is) Pakistan actively helping certain terrorist groups to destabilize Afghanistan or otherwise influence the balance of power there?
Right now, Pakistan is in a critical situation. With new leadership there, it is still unclear where they stand. The recent bombing of the Marriott only makes this situation more dire. Pakistan has said it will oppose any attempt by Americans to perform military actions on Pakistani soil (which the Americans would not have to do if Pakistan could/would fight the militants themselves). Most people didn't really understand the point of President Bush's "With Us or Against Us" statement at the time, but this is exactly the situation he was talking about.
The US must push Pakistan to actively hunt down and deny safe haven to all terrorist groups on its soil. As a sovereign nation, with rights to its territorial integrity, Pakistan has an obligation and responsibility to actively oppose anti-American or anti-Afghani military activity and illegal activity occurring on its soil. Should Pakistan shirk this responsibility, it cedes its territorial sovereignty automatically. If Pakistan should choose to say that its government officially supports the United States and opposes terrorism, but chooses not to fight the militants or police lawless safe-havens because a) it is afraid of increasing anti-government sentiment in Pakistan against the government of Pakistan, b) it is afraid of retaliation, or c) it is afraid of negative repercussions in its relations with other countries, then Pakistan is not "with us" it is "against us."
Most of the disaffected in Pakistan have no legitimate gripes against the United States that come anywhere close in importance or magnitude to their gripes against their own government. If the government of Pakistan allows illegal, hostile, violent, anti-American groups to fester because it doesn't want them to turn into anti-Pakistan groups, then it is an enemy and is "against us." This is exactly what Saddam Hussein, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and a host of other bad guys do and have done.
It is sometimes tempting to think, "Well, if we stop intervening or interfering, they won't hate us in the first place." This is absurd, though. During the 90s, we didn't intervene in Rwanda, didn't push the Russians too hard, withdrew from Mogadishu, did almost nothing to Iraq in 1998, offered no more than token support to Iranian reformers, let the pro-US forces in Beirut fend for themselves, "bargained" with N. Korea, didn't push Egypt to open up to democracy, etc... What did we get for all these efforts? The worst terrorist attacks against the US (and western allies) in history, a reinspired, militant, aggressive Russia, an openly hostile, brutally oppressive regime in Venezuela, a Saddam that gave reward money to the families of suicide bombers, pursued a policy of genocide against the Kurds, and fired on American planes patrolling the no-fly zone, a nuclear-armed North Korea, a colossal genocidal tragedy in Sudan, a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Somalia, and an Iran in clear violation of the NPT.
That strategy, which is tantamount to appeasement, and in part on the continuation of which George Bush got elected, clearly did not work. After 9/11, we adopted the much more realistic and morally consistent "with us or against us" strategy. We should stick to that strategy now with Pakistan. If they don't do enough to prove they are "with us," then, effectively they are "against us." If they don't stop terrorists from operating on their soil, the US should.
Boring People who "Like" "Food"
I have a new theory about why so many people are so into "food," "travel," or "the outdoors." These are things that people say they're into when they are essentially boring people.
I mean... yes... someone can be a genuine nature lover. A guy I know from work goes to great lengths and hikes through muddy swamps and whatnot in order to take pictures of outdoor scenes. But a) he's a very good photographer and b) he's also into all sorts of other stuff.
Here's my point. How many people are NOT into good food? Most people like it. How many people never travel or never go outdoors? There are probably some, but, basically, when I talk about the 25 year old girls who list their hobbies as 'food' and 'travel' I mean... which of their peers dislikes these things? These are not hobbies. Eating is not a hobby. Everybody eats. In fact, eating good food is not a hobby. If you are a single person living in a city, going to restaurants is not an interesting hobby - most people do it. Do you think they don't enjoy the good restaurants more than the bad restaurants? Who doesn't like to go to good restaurants with their friends and have fun? That's just regular people stuff. Is there nothing better you can think of to list as a hobby? Nothing that would differentiate you from... all other humans?
My new hobby is breathing. Not just breathing... but breathing well. Sometimes I think about breathing a lot. I check my pulse. I even jog to try to improve my breathing. I hold my breath and time myself. I'm pretty into breathing. That's my hobby. I'm so unique.
I have a friend who's a chef. If she said her hobby was cooking, it would only be inaccurate in the sense that she gets paid for it, so perhaps it's more than a hobby. I'm not talking about people who are chefs.
Now... I like food, restaurants, travel, and the outdoors. However, I also like tons of other things -- things that are more unique and distinguish me more from other people. So, if asked, I might say my hobbies are "foreign movies," "philosophy," "RPG/FPS/RTS games," "the History Channel," "building computers," "basketball," "starting businesses," and "writing letters to Condoleezza Rice." It's not that I don't like food, it's that I spend my life on a broader range of activities than enhancing my sustenance-taking experience.
If you imagine the boring 22-year old girl from San Jose who lists her hobbies as food and travel, yet knows little-to-nothing about cooking or geography, put her hobbies in perspective. She is a boring person with no hobbies to speak of.
Before you say you are "really into food," ask yourself... are you? Are you more into food than other people? Than all your peers? I'm sure you know more about some kind of cuisine that someone else you know... but are you into Mediterranean food? Do you know much about it? Do you think that "white meat" is "bland?" Do you know which desserts came from Italy, and not France? Do you know the difference between real Japanese food and fake Japanese food? Are you sure? Do you know what part of a cow the sirloin comes from? Do you know what Swiss Chard is? Would you fall for the Pizza Hut trick? Do you understand that all things are not made better by adding more salt? Are you sure that in a blind taste test you wouldn't systematically prefer the dishes with more salt? Most people do. Of course, then again, most people think they can taste the salt content of food, but most people can't (they can only taste the salt crystals on the oustide of food).
I'm not a foodie, and I don't claim to be one, but I suspect I know more about food than most of you do, and yet you list your hobby as "food." I think this means you're boring.
There's something even more sinister than this, though. You might be worse than boring; you might be spoiled and vain. Let's say that there is some 25 yr old girl from SF who posts all her pics of herself at restaurants, with her friends, and all their food. She claims she "loves GOOD sushi, not that shit that they have at Korean-owned sushi restaurants" (nevermind that sushi is Korean, too, or that you could theoretically have a good hamburger made by a South African guy in Mexico). She has been to lots of places in the world with her parents, for a semester abroad, and on trips that her boyfriend pays for. She lists her hobbies as "travel" and "eating - i love to choW dOWn!"
Now, take another girl who's 25 and lives in the Bay Area, but can't afford to eat at fancy restaurants or go on trips to Rio and Tokyo. Does she actually have different hobbies? No, she doesn't. In fact, the second she got a chance to go to Tokyo, she would start putting down "I love REAL Japanese food" and "travel" as her hobbies. They are already her hobbies, because they are already things she cares about; she just can't afford them. When you say that your hobbies are travel and "finding good restaurants" or whatever, and you aren't really that into either one, any more than anyone else is, then the only way in which you're actually differentiating yourself is that either a) you are well enough off to afford these things, b) you get people to buy you these things, or c) you have nothing else to do, so the second you have free time you always spend it traveling or going to restaurants.
Congratulations - you have showed how unique you are. Find a real hobby. Or, better, yet, do something with your life.
I mean... yes... someone can be a genuine nature lover. A guy I know from work goes to great lengths and hikes through muddy swamps and whatnot in order to take pictures of outdoor scenes. But a) he's a very good photographer and b) he's also into all sorts of other stuff.
Here's my point. How many people are NOT into good food? Most people like it. How many people never travel or never go outdoors? There are probably some, but, basically, when I talk about the 25 year old girls who list their hobbies as 'food' and 'travel' I mean... which of their peers dislikes these things? These are not hobbies. Eating is not a hobby. Everybody eats. In fact, eating good food is not a hobby. If you are a single person living in a city, going to restaurants is not an interesting hobby - most people do it. Do you think they don't enjoy the good restaurants more than the bad restaurants? Who doesn't like to go to good restaurants with their friends and have fun? That's just regular people stuff. Is there nothing better you can think of to list as a hobby? Nothing that would differentiate you from... all other humans?
My new hobby is breathing. Not just breathing... but breathing well. Sometimes I think about breathing a lot. I check my pulse. I even jog to try to improve my breathing. I hold my breath and time myself. I'm pretty into breathing. That's my hobby. I'm so unique.
I have a friend who's a chef. If she said her hobby was cooking, it would only be inaccurate in the sense that she gets paid for it, so perhaps it's more than a hobby. I'm not talking about people who are chefs.
Now... I like food, restaurants, travel, and the outdoors. However, I also like tons of other things -- things that are more unique and distinguish me more from other people. So, if asked, I might say my hobbies are "foreign movies," "philosophy," "RPG/FPS/RTS games," "the History Channel," "building computers," "basketball," "starting businesses," and "writing letters to Condoleezza Rice." It's not that I don't like food, it's that I spend my life on a broader range of activities than enhancing my sustenance-taking experience.
If you imagine the boring 22-year old girl from San Jose who lists her hobbies as food and travel, yet knows little-to-nothing about cooking or geography, put her hobbies in perspective. She is a boring person with no hobbies to speak of.
Before you say you are "really into food," ask yourself... are you? Are you more into food than other people? Than all your peers? I'm sure you know more about some kind of cuisine that someone else you know... but are you into Mediterranean food? Do you know much about it? Do you think that "white meat" is "bland?" Do you know which desserts came from Italy, and not France? Do you know the difference between real Japanese food and fake Japanese food? Are you sure? Do you know what part of a cow the sirloin comes from? Do you know what Swiss Chard is? Would you fall for the Pizza Hut trick? Do you understand that all things are not made better by adding more salt? Are you sure that in a blind taste test you wouldn't systematically prefer the dishes with more salt? Most people do. Of course, then again, most people think they can taste the salt content of food, but most people can't (they can only taste the salt crystals on the oustide of food).
I'm not a foodie, and I don't claim to be one, but I suspect I know more about food than most of you do, and yet you list your hobby as "food." I think this means you're boring.
There's something even more sinister than this, though. You might be worse than boring; you might be spoiled and vain. Let's say that there is some 25 yr old girl from SF who posts all her pics of herself at restaurants, with her friends, and all their food. She claims she "loves GOOD sushi, not that shit that they have at Korean-owned sushi restaurants" (nevermind that sushi is Korean, too, or that you could theoretically have a good hamburger made by a South African guy in Mexico). She has been to lots of places in the world with her parents, for a semester abroad, and on trips that her boyfriend pays for. She lists her hobbies as "travel" and "eating - i love to choW dOWn!"
Now, take another girl who's 25 and lives in the Bay Area, but can't afford to eat at fancy restaurants or go on trips to Rio and Tokyo. Does she actually have different hobbies? No, she doesn't. In fact, the second she got a chance to go to Tokyo, she would start putting down "I love REAL Japanese food" and "travel" as her hobbies. They are already her hobbies, because they are already things she cares about; she just can't afford them. When you say that your hobbies are travel and "finding good restaurants" or whatever, and you aren't really that into either one, any more than anyone else is, then the only way in which you're actually differentiating yourself is that either a) you are well enough off to afford these things, b) you get people to buy you these things, or c) you have nothing else to do, so the second you have free time you always spend it traveling or going to restaurants.
Congratulations - you have showed how unique you are. Find a real hobby. Or, better, yet, do something with your life.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez's recent expulsion of the US Ambassador should not go unpunished. Venezuela has become a pariah state and Chavez is endangering the lives and livelihoods of the tens of millions of citizens of his country and its neighbors. He is following the age-old formula of wasting the fruits of his peoples' labors on silly pet programs, unneeded weapons, and the mechanisms of an authoritarian state, while blaming anything that ails Venezuela on the United States.
He has banned the free media, supported the FARC, and suppressed his political opposition. These things alone should warrant his removal from power. Attempting to remove Chavez from power should be considered, but at this time, it appears that the more prudent thing to do is to force Venezuela to face consequences for its behavior. These actions should be aimed at the government, not the people, of Venezuela. In cases where the population should be affected, the US should make every effort to inform the citizens of Venezuela about what Chavez is doing.
The US should immediately restrict access by the Venezuelan government to the international banking system, as well as interdict and search any and all vessels crossing the open seas which may be suspected of carrying illegal drugs, legal or illegal weapons, illegal human cargoes, terrorists, or laundered money. The US should seize any contraband or weapons found. The US should put Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terror. Finally, the United States should also push the UN security council for a resolution authorizing the use of force to prevent contraband or weapons from flowing into Venezuela.
He has banned the free media, supported the FARC, and suppressed his political opposition. These things alone should warrant his removal from power. Attempting to remove Chavez from power should be considered, but at this time, it appears that the more prudent thing to do is to force Venezuela to face consequences for its behavior. These actions should be aimed at the government, not the people, of Venezuela. In cases where the population should be affected, the US should make every effort to inform the citizens of Venezuela about what Chavez is doing.
The US should immediately restrict access by the Venezuelan government to the international banking system, as well as interdict and search any and all vessels crossing the open seas which may be suspected of carrying illegal drugs, legal or illegal weapons, illegal human cargoes, terrorists, or laundered money. The US should seize any contraband or weapons found. The US should put Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terror. Finally, the United States should also push the UN security council for a resolution authorizing the use of force to prevent contraband or weapons from flowing into Venezuela.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Credit Crisis 2
Building upon the same ideas I was talking about a few days ago, I'm going to take another stab at "explaining" what's going on with banks right now.
The financial crisis is worsening, but this shouldn't really surprise anyone. What is perhaps more surprising is that it's not having a bigger impact on the economy outside of the financial sector. I will return later to the question of why this is the case. But first, let's review some of the problems:
We're like a person with the hiccups who keeps thinking he's cured, only to be surprised by the inevitable next hiccup. What will it take to shock or relax us all the way out of this mess? One of the major problems is that people keep underestimating how bad their debt portfolios are:
A bank has bad loans. Eventually it realizes some of these loans are no good, writes them off, raises some more money to meet the reserve requirements, and then for a while, things appear to be OK again. Rinse. Repeat. Why don't they get all the debts written down in one go? This is an oversimplified way of looking at the problem, but I think there are many factors that are clearly part of the answer:
1) Because they (all the way up to the CEOs) are completely unrealistic about housing prices. Underlying much of this "bad debt" are mortgages that are underwater, people that can't afford their payments, and declining real estate values. If you find yourself thinking things like, "maybe housing prices have gone down, but not around here, or only a little bit" then you are making the same mistake the CEOs of investment banks are making. If you think that -5% to +5% is a reasonable range for the rate of growth of housing prices for the next year, you are not calibrated. My analysis of the fundamentals, which I hope to organize and publish on this blog, says that housing prices could still fall by as much as 40%. I'm not saying they *will* fall by 40%, but I'm saying that anyone who's "sure" that prices couldn't fall another 20% is crazy (and wrong). There is no evidence to suggest that it's impossible or very improbable that prices could fall 25% by next Christmas.
2) Because they are making the mistake of caring about sunk costs. It doesn't matter what size "loss" you have to take. That money is gone. If, starting today, it's better to hold these debts on your balance sheet, that's what you should do. If, starting today, it's better to get these debts off your balance sheet, that's what you should do. It basically makes no difference whether they've "gone down." In fact, the more they've gone down, the bigger the tax benefit of dumping them will be. Individual consumers are making this same mistake. There are tons of people out there who *should* be selling their houses. In order to sell, they would have to accept much lower prices than they want. They think it's better to "wait it out" and sell later, when prices are higher. They are very often wrong. Many people in this situation would be better off if they sold the houses now, even at the low prices, stopped paying the mortgages, and used the cash for other purposes. But, they aren't sophisticated enough in their understanding of personal finance to actually understand their *own* financial situations.
3) Because the CDS (commonly referred to as "swaps") and other such derivative instruments are so difficult to understand that financial analysts, accountants, and executives can't easily assess their exposure to various asset value declines.
CEOs of investment banks are underestimating the "badness" of debts in part because people are irrationally holding houses they should sell, keeping them off the market, and making prices appear artificially high. Maybe this is happening more than people realize. The slow deleveraging of individuals may be hindering the "right" amount of deleveraging by banks. If this is the case, I see two possible scenarios:
1) Maybe this will start seriously affecting individuals soon because no possibility of refinancing will exist and more and more people will be foreclosed upon. With more foreclosures on the market, prices will finally fall and more people will have negative equity and finally be forced to deleverage. In this scenario, individual consumers, especially home-owners, will get hit hard by this problem over the next couple of years.
2) Maybe the values of these houses, which were largely imaginary, were exploited by the banks and mortgage brokers to such an extent that they will now pay the majority of the price of adjustment. Maybe they "captured" so much of the real estate boom that consumers won't be as affected by it as they otherwise would. We have already seen $500B in real estate wealth disappear, and I suspect that number will double or triple over the next year. Even $1T of losses would leave the real estate market overvalued, in my opinion. Even after $1T of losses, we will probably see real real estate appreciation over the next 10 years lag behind the rest of the economy (to complete its correction).
President Bush deserves some small measure of responsibility for some of this. I don't know how many people he really influenced, but his ownership-society policies that pushed people to buy houses did contribute to the irrational exuberance about the real estate market.
The financial crisis is worsening, but this shouldn't really surprise anyone. What is perhaps more surprising is that it's not having a bigger impact on the economy outside of the financial sector. I will return later to the question of why this is the case. But first, let's review some of the problems:
We're like a person with the hiccups who keeps thinking he's cured, only to be surprised by the inevitable next hiccup. What will it take to shock or relax us all the way out of this mess? One of the major problems is that people keep underestimating how bad their debt portfolios are:
A bank has bad loans. Eventually it realizes some of these loans are no good, writes them off, raises some more money to meet the reserve requirements, and then for a while, things appear to be OK again. Rinse. Repeat. Why don't they get all the debts written down in one go? This is an oversimplified way of looking at the problem, but I think there are many factors that are clearly part of the answer:
1) Because they (all the way up to the CEOs) are completely unrealistic about housing prices. Underlying much of this "bad debt" are mortgages that are underwater, people that can't afford their payments, and declining real estate values. If you find yourself thinking things like, "maybe housing prices have gone down, but not around here, or only a little bit" then you are making the same mistake the CEOs of investment banks are making. If you think that -5% to +5% is a reasonable range for the rate of growth of housing prices for the next year, you are not calibrated. My analysis of the fundamentals, which I hope to organize and publish on this blog, says that housing prices could still fall by as much as 40%. I'm not saying they *will* fall by 40%, but I'm saying that anyone who's "sure" that prices couldn't fall another 20% is crazy (and wrong). There is no evidence to suggest that it's impossible or very improbable that prices could fall 25% by next Christmas.
2) Because they are making the mistake of caring about sunk costs. It doesn't matter what size "loss" you have to take. That money is gone. If, starting today, it's better to hold these debts on your balance sheet, that's what you should do. If, starting today, it's better to get these debts off your balance sheet, that's what you should do. It basically makes no difference whether they've "gone down." In fact, the more they've gone down, the bigger the tax benefit of dumping them will be. Individual consumers are making this same mistake. There are tons of people out there who *should* be selling their houses. In order to sell, they would have to accept much lower prices than they want. They think it's better to "wait it out" and sell later, when prices are higher. They are very often wrong. Many people in this situation would be better off if they sold the houses now, even at the low prices, stopped paying the mortgages, and used the cash for other purposes. But, they aren't sophisticated enough in their understanding of personal finance to actually understand their *own* financial situations.
3) Because the CDS (commonly referred to as "swaps") and other such derivative instruments are so difficult to understand that financial analysts, accountants, and executives can't easily assess their exposure to various asset value declines.
- Firms never should have let themselves get into this situation. They turned a blind eye to the risks they were taking with financially engineered derivative instruments and securitized debt.
- The regulatory scheme for these products (commonly dealt in by investment banks) was "bad."
- Many of the debt swaps, for example, were not traded on any kind of market. They were just traded between individual parties. This created complex domino chains of default and risk. It meant there was no "market price" for people to "see" and react to. It has become fairly well understood that the point of capitalism isn't just to facilitate free exchange, but also to support free "markets."
- There was a lack of adequate or logical insurance requirements for these instruments. Firms didn't have to purchase the insurance they should probably have been required to have. Because they didn't have to purchase this insurance, rising insurance premiums did not serve as a signal that something was wrong between about 2003 and 2006, while these problems were incubating.
- There is a lack of transparency to these products, making it hard even for professional investors to analyze them.
- People were greedy, and took advantage of the obscure nature of these products to take financial risks that might otherwise have been discouraged, because the potential upside was so large.
CEOs of investment banks are underestimating the "badness" of debts in part because people are irrationally holding houses they should sell, keeping them off the market, and making prices appear artificially high. Maybe this is happening more than people realize. The slow deleveraging of individuals may be hindering the "right" amount of deleveraging by banks. If this is the case, I see two possible scenarios:
1) Maybe this will start seriously affecting individuals soon because no possibility of refinancing will exist and more and more people will be foreclosed upon. With more foreclosures on the market, prices will finally fall and more people will have negative equity and finally be forced to deleverage. In this scenario, individual consumers, especially home-owners, will get hit hard by this problem over the next couple of years.
2) Maybe the values of these houses, which were largely imaginary, were exploited by the banks and mortgage brokers to such an extent that they will now pay the majority of the price of adjustment. Maybe they "captured" so much of the real estate boom that consumers won't be as affected by it as they otherwise would. We have already seen $500B in real estate wealth disappear, and I suspect that number will double or triple over the next year. Even $1T of losses would leave the real estate market overvalued, in my opinion. Even after $1T of losses, we will probably see real real estate appreciation over the next 10 years lag behind the rest of the economy (to complete its correction).
President Bush deserves some small measure of responsibility for some of this. I don't know how many people he really influenced, but his ownership-society policies that pushed people to buy houses did contribute to the irrational exuberance about the real estate market.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Disutility of Yelp
Ok. Yelp reviews are so senseless.
Point the first: What is the review based on? Is it on the food? The cleanliness of the bathroom? The price/value? Whether they deliver? The reason this matters is that when someone gives a place (2/5) stars because "for $8 the burrito (which was good) should have been bigger" or (5/5) because "They D-E-L-I-V-E-R (I stoke!)" this throws the ratings off. The only way this isn't a problem is if both: a) there are many reviews and b) the weirdness of peoples' reviews is normally distributed. These are not both always the case.
There is already a place where it shows the number of $'s. So, the reviews would be more helpful if they were just on quality (I can then divide quality by price to determine value). But people all have their own criteria, which means that you get a mish-mash of reviewing criteria, which destroys the value of the rankings.
Point the second: Everybody thinks they're a foodie now, but they're not. I just read a review where this guy went on and on gushing about how some restaurant was the greatest thing ever because it had Italian food AND seafood. Seafood is Italian food numnuts. Italy is a huge peninsula, surrounded by fisherman. What did you think they ate? I guess he thought that Stouffer's lasagne was authentic. This guy probably also loves the Olive Garden and Pasta Pomodoro. How does this review help me? There are SO many like this.
Point the third: Expectations. Let me illustrate it like this. Most In&Out's have 4 stars on Yelp. Many fancy restaurants that have excellent food also have 4 stars. This happens because ratings are based on what people expect when they go there, which is, of course, inconsistent. Now, I love In&Out as much as the next man, but this just proves that strict quality of food is not represented by the ratings. I know that's not the only point of Yelp, but it's the main point, isn't it? If it isn't primarily about finding good food, what is it for? If I can't differentiate between In&Out and Morton's from the ratings, how meaningful are they really?
The people on Yelp are like the people in the Pizza Hut commercial, who are served Pizza Hut food in a fancy restaurant, give it rave reviews, and then act (except for one dude who's my hero) embarrassed to learn it's from Pizza Hut. The guy who's my hero simply says, somewhat defensively, "It's good!" He is able to do this (not be superficial and tell the truth about how he feels) because he is not a pretentious douche.
Point the fourth: The Pinay mafia. Not to pick on the lovely Flip girls, but it appears that there are huge amounts of reviews on Yelp from big groups of girls who are essentially competing to be cool in the eyes of their friends via Yelp. They compete to be leet, gush about 99% of restaurants at which they "had fun" regardless of the food, and then trash a restaurant randomly because they are 21 and don't have enough cycles behind them yet to have learned how to compensate for their PMS.
The Solution:
I suggested my method to Alex, which is to look at tons of the reviews and the pictures of the reviewers and try to construct some sort of essence of the restaurant. Here's an example... hmm... city-girls like this place b/c it has takeout and their boyfriend is "practically a regular" (which is non-sensical, b/c if he were the regular, she should be cutting & pasting his review). The pinay mafia also loves the teriyaki chicken (because Filipinos like sweet things). All the people who gave it 5 stars are white. 50% of reviewers said the sushi is super fresh and 50% said it was NOT fresh (because regular people are not equipped with a fish freshness detector in their bodies - instead they got the standard factory package (poorly trained eye and nose and little to no knowledge of fish or food preparation))(I am willing to bet that if you take the sushi people think is not fresh, put it in the fridge until it's 8 degrees colder, mist it, and serve it to (most of) them again, they will think it's super fresh, even though it's now 1 hour less fresh). Finally, several Chinese guys complained that it was overpriced and the portions were small (despite the fact it has 2 $'s). Nobody named Yuki or Ayako has reviewed the restaurant.
CONCLUSION: INCONCLUSIVE. There is no conclusion. You have no clue whether this is a good sushi restaurant or not until Yuki and Ayako go there or a real food critic tells you whether the sushi was fresh.
Alex's solution:
Find individual reviewers you agree with and just follow their reviews. This method has the virtue of being a whole lot quicker than mine. It probably works better. However, it is less comically amusing.
This is part of a longer rant that is forming in my mind about how the internet and the 2.0-captain-ajax-interblag and whatnot isn't as cool or revolutionary as people think it is.
To hammer my point all the way home:
I think a site that showed a pic of the exterior of the restaurant (and address), interior, parking lot, and menu with prices would be more useful.
Now... the UPC code... that was revolutionary.
Point the first: What is the review based on? Is it on the food? The cleanliness of the bathroom? The price/value? Whether they deliver? The reason this matters is that when someone gives a place (2/5) stars because "for $8 the burrito (which was good) should have been bigger" or (5/5) because "They D-E-L-I-V-E-R (I stoke!)" this throws the ratings off. The only way this isn't a problem is if both: a) there are many reviews and b) the weirdness of peoples' reviews is normally distributed. These are not both always the case.
There is already a place where it shows the number of $'s. So, the reviews would be more helpful if they were just on quality (I can then divide quality by price to determine value). But people all have their own criteria, which means that you get a mish-mash of reviewing criteria, which destroys the value of the rankings.
Point the second: Everybody thinks they're a foodie now, but they're not. I just read a review where this guy went on and on gushing about how some restaurant was the greatest thing ever because it had Italian food AND seafood. Seafood is Italian food numnuts. Italy is a huge peninsula, surrounded by fisherman. What did you think they ate? I guess he thought that Stouffer's lasagne was authentic. This guy probably also loves the Olive Garden and Pasta Pomodoro. How does this review help me? There are SO many like this.
Point the third: Expectations. Let me illustrate it like this. Most In&Out's have 4 stars on Yelp. Many fancy restaurants that have excellent food also have 4 stars. This happens because ratings are based on what people expect when they go there, which is, of course, inconsistent. Now, I love In&Out as much as the next man, but this just proves that strict quality of food is not represented by the ratings. I know that's not the only point of Yelp, but it's the main point, isn't it? If it isn't primarily about finding good food, what is it for? If I can't differentiate between In&Out and Morton's from the ratings, how meaningful are they really?
The people on Yelp are like the people in the Pizza Hut commercial, who are served Pizza Hut food in a fancy restaurant, give it rave reviews, and then act (except for one dude who's my hero) embarrassed to learn it's from Pizza Hut. The guy who's my hero simply says, somewhat defensively, "It's good!" He is able to do this (not be superficial and tell the truth about how he feels) because he is not a pretentious douche.
Point the fourth: The Pinay mafia. Not to pick on the lovely Flip girls, but it appears that there are huge amounts of reviews on Yelp from big groups of girls who are essentially competing to be cool in the eyes of their friends via Yelp. They compete to be leet, gush about 99% of restaurants at which they "had fun" regardless of the food, and then trash a restaurant randomly because they are 21 and don't have enough cycles behind them yet to have learned how to compensate for their PMS.
The Solution:
I suggested my method to Alex, which is to look at tons of the reviews and the pictures of the reviewers and try to construct some sort of essence of the restaurant. Here's an example... hmm... city-girls like this place b/c it has takeout and their boyfriend is "practically a regular" (which is non-sensical, b/c if he were the regular, she should be cutting & pasting his review). The pinay mafia also loves the teriyaki chicken (because Filipinos like sweet things). All the people who gave it 5 stars are white. 50% of reviewers said the sushi is super fresh and 50% said it was NOT fresh (because regular people are not equipped with a fish freshness detector in their bodies - instead they got the standard factory package (poorly trained eye and nose and little to no knowledge of fish or food preparation))(I am willing to bet that if you take the sushi people think is not fresh, put it in the fridge until it's 8 degrees colder, mist it, and serve it to (most of) them again, they will think it's super fresh, even though it's now 1 hour less fresh). Finally, several Chinese guys complained that it was overpriced and the portions were small (despite the fact it has 2 $'s). Nobody named Yuki or Ayako has reviewed the restaurant.
CONCLUSION: INCONCLUSIVE. There is no conclusion. You have no clue whether this is a good sushi restaurant or not until Yuki and Ayako go there or a real food critic tells you whether the sushi was fresh.
Alex's solution:
Find individual reviewers you agree with and just follow their reviews. This method has the virtue of being a whole lot quicker than mine. It probably works better. However, it is less comically amusing.
This is part of a longer rant that is forming in my mind about how the internet and the 2.0-captain-ajax-interblag and whatnot isn't as cool or revolutionary as people think it is.
To hammer my point all the way home:
I think a site that showed a pic of the exterior of the restaurant (and address), interior, parking lot, and menu with prices would be more useful.
Now... the UPC code... that was revolutionary.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Tbilisi Screwed Up
The Georgians really miscalculated in this whole thing. They knew full well they were going to set the Russians off, but I think that they (the Georgians) thought the US would actually support them militarily.
Now, thanks to this, everything is all screwed up with Russia. On the other hand, things were deteriorating pretty badly with Russia, anyway. But one still has to place some blame on the US Government for not explaining the world to the Georgians a little bit more clearly, sooner.
Now, thanks to this, everything is all screwed up with Russia. On the other hand, things were deteriorating pretty badly with Russia, anyway. But one still has to place some blame on the US Government for not explaining the world to the Georgians a little bit more clearly, sooner.
Trying Hard to Support Both Campaigns as Much as I Support Both Candidates
I am totally getting spammed by the Obama campaign since my donation. Here is my exchange with them. Their fund-raising drivel comes first, followed by my response (this message is annoying for a million reasons, not the least of which is it kind of implies that I didn't just donate money to this campaign a couple of days ago):
"On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM, David Plouffe, BarackObama.com <info@barackobama.com> wrote:
Andrew --
Even Karl Rove had to admit yesterday that the McCain campaign's lies and negative attacks have gone "too far."
John McCain is running the most negative and dishonest campaign in modern presidential history. He has demonstrated that he'd rather lose his integrity than lose this election.
It's right out of the Bush-Rove playbook. Unfortunately, as Karl Rove knows better than anyone, these shameful tactics have worked in the past.
This year, we can't let that happen.
Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight.
And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.
Double your impact right now. Your matched donation of $5 will become $10 if you donate today.
The culture of corruption and dishonesty that has hurt America so badly the last eight years is playing an even larger role in McCain's campaign.
Just this past week, John McCain hired a Washington super-lobbyist to fill positions in a potential McCain-Palin White House. At least 177 lobbyists have been on McCain's campaign staff, and apparently he hopes to run the White House the same way.
Also this week, the McCain campaign continued to repeat a number of outrageous lies, even after watchdogs in the media called them "shamelessly misleading," "thoroughly dishonest," and "a toxic mix of lies and double-speak."
They also lied about the crowd size at one of their rallies -- reporting 23,000 attendees when there were only 8,000.
McCain's campaign -- run on lobbyists and lies -- is no match for this unprecedented grassroots movement. More than 2,500,000 people have stepped up to own a piece of this campaign.
But if we want change, we must continue to grow this movement and put an end to these dishonorable political tactics. And we have just 50 days left to do it.
Right now, a previous donor -- an ordinary person just like you -- has promised to match your donation if you step up today.
Double your impact to combat McCain's dishonest campaign tactics -- make a matched donation of $5 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Thanks for all you do,
David
David PlouffeCampaign ManagerObama for America
Mr. Plouffe,
I donated to the Obama campaign because I like Sen. Obama. I also like Sen. McCain. Sending this kind of faux muckraking stuff to me doesn't make me hate Sen. McCain or like Sen. Obama better - it confirms what I already thought, which is that both campaigns are engaged in exactly the same kind of negativity.
I donated $25 to the McCain campaign and $25 to the Obama campaign. I haven't yet decided whether to donate any more to either. But you are unlikely to get any more from me by saying, "he did it first, neener neener, give us money." Despite how mind-numbingly immature both sides' campaigns appear at times to be (evidenced by emails like the one from you to which I'm replying), I still feel that we, as Americans, have two great candidates this time. Telling me that one of my heroes (Obama) is "great" by disparaging another of my heroes (McCain) isn't exactly the way to win my vote, either.
Regards,
Andrew Barkett
Technical Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Sr. Management Consultant, TAOS Mountain Inc.
Sr. Management Consultant, NVIDIA Inc.
Member, Bay Area Council
PS I reserve the right to post your original solicitation email and my reply on my various blogs and other media outlets to which I have access.
"On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM, David Plouffe, BarackObama.com <info@barackobama.com> wrote:
Andrew --
Even Karl Rove had to admit yesterday that the McCain campaign's lies and negative attacks have gone "too far."
John McCain is running the most negative and dishonest campaign in modern presidential history. He has demonstrated that he'd rather lose his integrity than lose this election.
It's right out of the Bush-Rove playbook. Unfortunately, as Karl Rove knows better than anyone, these shameful tactics have worked in the past.
This year, we can't let that happen.
Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight.
And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.
Double your impact right now. Your matched donation of $5 will become $10 if you donate today.
The culture of corruption and dishonesty that has hurt America so badly the last eight years is playing an even larger role in McCain's campaign.
Just this past week, John McCain hired a Washington super-lobbyist to fill positions in a potential McCain-Palin White House. At least 177 lobbyists have been on McCain's campaign staff, and apparently he hopes to run the White House the same way.
Also this week, the McCain campaign continued to repeat a number of outrageous lies, even after watchdogs in the media called them "shamelessly misleading," "thoroughly dishonest," and "a toxic mix of lies and double-speak."
They also lied about the crowd size at one of their rallies -- reporting 23,000 attendees when there were only 8,000.
McCain's campaign -- run on lobbyists and lies -- is no match for this unprecedented grassroots movement. More than 2,500,000 people have stepped up to own a piece of this campaign.
But if we want change, we must continue to grow this movement and put an end to these dishonorable political tactics. And we have just 50 days left to do it.
Right now, a previous donor -- an ordinary person just like you -- has promised to match your donation if you step up today.
Double your impact to combat McCain's dishonest campaign tactics -- make a matched donation of $5 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Thanks for all you do,
David
David PlouffeCampaign ManagerObama for America
Mr. Plouffe,
I donated to the Obama campaign because I like Sen. Obama. I also like Sen. McCain. Sending this kind of faux muckraking stuff to me doesn't make me hate Sen. McCain or like Sen. Obama better - it confirms what I already thought, which is that both campaigns are engaged in exactly the same kind of negativity.
I donated $25 to the McCain campaign and $25 to the Obama campaign. I haven't yet decided whether to donate any more to either. But you are unlikely to get any more from me by saying, "he did it first, neener neener, give us money." Despite how mind-numbingly immature both sides' campaigns appear at times to be (evidenced by emails like the one from you to which I'm replying), I still feel that we, as Americans, have two great candidates this time. Telling me that one of my heroes (Obama) is "great" by disparaging another of my heroes (McCain) isn't exactly the way to win my vote, either.
Regards,
Andrew Barkett
Technical Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Sr. Management Consultant, TAOS Mountain Inc.
Sr. Management Consultant, NVIDIA Inc.
Member, Bay Area Council
PS I reserve the right to post your original solicitation email and my reply on my various blogs and other media outlets to which I have access.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
You Are a Bad Person
I have been thinking for a long time about how most people think they're "better than average" people, yet that's absurd, statistically. I read a poll once that said that 80% of people consider themselves better-than-average drivers. Of course, this is basically impossible (technically, it's possible, but the point is still that people overestimate their own talents (or underestimate those of others)).
So, my frustration is that most people think they are good people. In fact, most people think they are better than most other people. But they aren't. Roughly half the people out there are worse than average. It's just a fact. So, the chances are about 50/50 that you fall into the "worse person" half of the spectrum.
I have finally found a way to explain this...
Let's say we're having an argument about whether you're a selfish girl or not.
Me: "You're a selfish girl."
You: "No, I'm not. I may have been acting selfish just now, but I don't usually act this way."
Here's my new zinger punchline: Serial killers don't usually kill the people they see. They kill only a small fraction of the people they see. But killing a few people is enough to make you a terrible psychotic murderer. Maybe being selfish some of the time is all it takes to be a relatively "selfish person."
So, my frustration is that most people think they are good people. In fact, most people think they are better than most other people. But they aren't. Roughly half the people out there are worse than average. It's just a fact. So, the chances are about 50/50 that you fall into the "worse person" half of the spectrum.
I have finally found a way to explain this...
Let's say we're having an argument about whether you're a selfish girl or not.
Me: "You're a selfish girl."
You: "No, I'm not. I may have been acting selfish just now, but I don't usually act this way."
Here's my new zinger punchline: Serial killers don't usually kill the people they see. They kill only a small fraction of the people they see. But killing a few people is enough to make you a terrible psychotic murderer. Maybe being selfish some of the time is all it takes to be a relatively "selfish person."
Bill Gates / Jerry Seinfeld Ad
There has been a lot of talk about the new Microsoft Ads. Many people hate them, which is no surprise, and they certainly are odd, but I offer this analysis of one way in which I think they are going to be highly successful. 
Who looks like the computer nerd in these frames?
From left to right (top to bottom): "Bill Gates," "PC guy," and "Mac guy". Umm... exactly 2-3 of these guys look like the IT nerds I know. The third one (the guy on the (bottom) right) looks vaguely like Zach Braff, which is a different kind of geeky that has nothing to do with AV clubs and everything to do with Hollywood. Real IT guys are: fat, inappropriately dressed, have lame haircuts, etc...
They shop at places like this:
I, for example, shop at Shoe Barn most of the time, because it's cheaper and you can't tell the difference between my Shoe Barn shoes and expensive shoes. When I am going to buy (or build) a computer, the first thing I look at is the price/performance charts for CPUs. If you ask a Mac owner what CPU her Mac has, she rarely knows.
This is how a computer guy buys shoes:
Computer guys eat churros:
Computer guys sometimes have health problems. They do not work out enough or eat right. This is part of being a computer guy. What the hell is the Mac guy wearing? He's coke-addict skinny and it appears he's wearing a collarless Kung-Fu-the-Legend-Continues shirt. Who would win in a fight between these two guys? No contest, the bigger guy wins. He also appears to have his original digital watch from 1985 and a cheaper haircut. So, he wins the fight and he saves money.
The Apple Ads have always pissed me off because a) they make fun of me, b) they are about how getting a Mac makes you "cool", c) they are factually inaccurate and misleading, and d) they aren't funny, they're just smug.
This one says, "Unless you become a Mac user you can't get that Japanese girl that you want." WTF:? A) This is not true, I am living proof, and B) Why do you fall for this crap? Getting a Mac will make girls like you? That's why you like Macs? Aren't you insulted that a computer company would market to you that way instead of like... reading off performance specs? I am. That (ceasing to care about what's under the hood so you can get a fancier outside to impress girls) is not a computer-guy thing to do. It's like driving around in a Passat with the top down because it'll make chicks like you. This is not a real car. Real car people do not buy those.
Real computer guys eat pizza all night, drink soda with both sugar and caffeine, don't wear fancy clothes, are moderately anti-social, play video games all the time, have no clue where to get that black collarless shirt, shop at the Shoe Circus, and usually don't have girlfriends (but when they get them, it is never because of their Macintosh). Computer guys should learn only enough about Macs to help girls (that buy them because they're pretty) fix them when they're broken (which is always) in order to aid in getting laid. Furthermore, while fixing these computers in hopes of getting laid, computer guys should berate Macs for always being broken and to discourage superficial behavior on the part of women.
PS I had to watch all the Mac Ads on YouTube because either apple.com or quicktime (or probably both) were broken this morning.
PPS Please note: I am no great fan of Microsoft, either, but their commercials are less annoying (and more accurate in their depiction of reality) than Apple commercials.
PPPS Also, my computer nerdry is unassailable, so don't get any ideas: I taught myself how to program when I was 7. I have built more computers than you have owned. I have been an IT guy and a software developer. I am totally impatient with you when you can't operate your computer. I know at least 8 programming languages. I used to work inside semiconductor factories. I was the king of BBS games. I work at Google. I now also work at nvidia, which makes graphics cards that are basically only used for computer games. My greatest fear and aspiration is that I will (accidentally) develop an evil AI. My roommate and I made an online cockfighting ring that we made money off of. I have released my own shareware, I have installed many distros of Linux, and I currently have 2 desktops and 4 laptops in my room.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Nature of Free Will
Free will without logic and causality is useless, because while we may be free to choose, we won't be able to tell what we're choosing. Imagine a world where there is no strict relationship between cause and effect. In this world, events would seem completely random. I could choose to open the refrigerator, but it might spontaneously close itself a moment later. Or, it might stay open, but the little light might not come on. This means that I would not be truly “free” to turn on the light in the refrigerator, because whether it came on or not would be purely a matter of chance and I would have no influence upon it. Free will only makes sense in the context of a universe with a high degree of predictability and stable rules of cause and effect.
If free will only makes sense in the context of an ordered universe, which works like a long line of dominoes of cause and effect, then our “choices” are little more than the decisions about where to set up dominoes that will fall later in the chain. I do not choose to tip over every domino in a chain. In fact, even if I set up the dominoes quite carefully, I don’t even know for certain that each one will tip over. This small degree of uncertainty about the dominoes represents the uncertainty that we humans have about the physical universe. We assume that rocks don’t suddenly leap up off the ground, but they could, in a theoretical sense, do just that, according to the laws of quantum mechanics. In fact, individual atoms do weird things like that all the time. The probability that all (or even most) of the atoms in the rock spontaneously decide to move in a gravity-defying direction, though, is so small that you might have to live for trillions of years just to see that happen with one pebble, somewhere on the earth, one time. Even in trillions of years, it’s unlikely that it would happen.
We might have another choice beyond the choice of where to set up our dominoes, though. In fact, none of us really tips over the first domino. Our very births are just dominoes in some existing chain. But, we might have the ability, metaphorically, to tip over dominoes “out of order” like an eager kid starting in the middle of a long line because he’s eager to see that line of dominoes fall.
We might also have the choice available to us of what dominoes we see fall. We might be able to choose to watch one trail of dominoes now and another later. We might not restrict our perspective to watching a single trail of causes and effects. The importance of this choice should not be overlooked because if no one ever chose to look in a certain direction, at lines of dominoes off in some dark corner of a room, we might never even know those dominoes exist.
These few choices are the main (perhaps only) ways in which we can express our free will, which is dependent on the order and causality in the universe, the rules of physics, and the relationships between causes and effects maintaining a degree of consistency over time (predictability). The ironic conclusion is that in a world with no “lines of dominoes” – a world in which things happen arbitrarily – we are not free to choose our paths.
We must then, be chained to the laws of cause and effect in order to be free, the same way we must have limited rights under our government to maintain our liberty. For example, if I am free to kill at will, I can deprive you of your freedom to live, and thereby, your free will. Such is the order of the universe. It is a paradox that freedom can only exist partially, and partial freedom sometimes seems like no freedom at all.
There are many odd implications of this idea that freedom is inherently partial. First it means that, the same way a society cannot be organized by anarchy, truly free will on the part of its participants is an impossible way to organize the universe. Truly and completely free will is not possible without cause and effect, and cause and effect can exist only in an ordered universe. An ordered universe has rules, and these rules place limits upon the imposition of our wills. These conclusions raise moral, ethical, and philosophical conclusions: are people who don’t understand cause and effect less free?
Intelligence, logic, and even religious faith are ways of decoding, demystifying, or subjugating the seeming arbitrariness of the universe. Gravity seemed completely arbitrary until it was understood by Newton. Gravitational effects on an interstellar or light-speed scale seemed arbitrary until Einstein refined Newton’s theories of gravity. If education or faith reduces arbitrariness, do they then increase free will? Am I making a “more free” choice if I do so within the context of a greater understanding of how the universe would work should I make no choice (or a different choice)? In some ways, this feels intuitively correct. If I truly have no clue who I am voting for (if I just choose the longest name, or the one that comes first alphabetically), have I exercised less free will than someone who consciously votes for a particular candidate for particular reasons? If I have no idea how to drive a car, should my “choice” to steer it into a lake be viewed in the same way as a similar choice by Dale Earnhardt Jr.
There is also a further moral implication. If someone has no understanding of cause and effect, if they can’t predict what will happen tomorrow, what have I really done if I throw them in jail? What have I taken away from them? As far as they understood the world, this might have happened, anyway. Uncomfortable as this implication may be, it seems that if a person were completely unable to predict events, and therefore completely unable to exercise free will, then he would have no freedom for me to take away by my putting him in chains. This sounds silly, and it doesn’t apply to humans very well, but it’s exactly the argument we use for other living organisms. We treat plants as if they have no free will (and they don’t seem to). Whether it is sunny, whether they are watered by rain, or whether they are eaten by animals appear, from the plants’ points of view, to be completely arbitrary events. Since plants have no free will, we have no qualms about deciding to lock them up, move them around, or kill and eat them.
Perhaps the most relevant implication, though, concerns education. Because understanding the universe reduces arbitrariness, and in a world with less arbitrariness -- a world in which we can see all the perfect lines of dominoes as they are -- we have the most true freedom to choose what to look at and if or how to interfere with the lines of dominoes. Education, logic, intellect, or religion -- anything that helps us understand the universe -- sets us free.
10,000 Hours or 10 Years
What does it mean to be an expert on something? What does it take? A lot of research has been done about this, and, unfortunately, I don't have links to all of it here. One pattern that I have seen emerging in the research, though, is that there is some kind of threshold of experience that seems to be strongly correlated with mastery.
I have heard two different estimates for this threshold. I have heard that one must spend 10,000 hours on an activity to attain mastery. For example, a study that correlated different factors with athletic success found that number of hours spent practicing was a better indicator of success in a sport than such aspects as whether one's parent(s) played the sport, natural physical ability, or intelligence.
Another estimate that I have heard is that it takes 10 years of active participation to become an expert. Of course, there are lots of things people do for 10 years without mastering. But, doing something diligently, like, say, as a job, for 10 years does seem like enough to achieve mastery. If I programmed in Perl for 10 years, I think I would be an expert on it. If I worked at playing the saxophone for the next 10 years, I might not be the best player in the world, but I would likely be considered an expert by almost everyone who assessed me.
In fact, these two estimates aren't too far apart... if you do 10,000 hours of something over a 10 year period, it amounts to 1,000 hours per year, or about 2.74 hours / day. That seems pretty believable. So, if you do something for 3 hours per day, with a little break in the middle, you'll be an expert in roughly 10 years.
I have heard two different estimates for this threshold. I have heard that one must spend 10,000 hours on an activity to attain mastery. For example, a study that correlated different factors with athletic success found that number of hours spent practicing was a better indicator of success in a sport than such aspects as whether one's parent(s) played the sport, natural physical ability, or intelligence.
Another estimate that I have heard is that it takes 10 years of active participation to become an expert. Of course, there are lots of things people do for 10 years without mastering. But, doing something diligently, like, say, as a job, for 10 years does seem like enough to achieve mastery. If I programmed in Perl for 10 years, I think I would be an expert on it. If I worked at playing the saxophone for the next 10 years, I might not be the best player in the world, but I would likely be considered an expert by almost everyone who assessed me.
In fact, these two estimates aren't too far apart... if you do 10,000 hours of something over a 10 year period, it amounts to 1,000 hours per year, or about 2.74 hours / day. That seems pretty believable. So, if you do something for 3 hours per day, with a little break in the middle, you'll be an expert in roughly 10 years.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Credit Crisis
The front page of the WSJ today had an article titled "Credit Crisis Strains Government's Options". It posed this question: "Why haven't the steps taken so far calmed the system? What can policy makers do next?"
There are many aspects to this crisis, but I want to focus on three, very specific issues: consumer deleveraging, bank regulation, and housing prices.
Consumer deleveraging
Deleveraging, or shedding debt, is a process that both corporations and individuals go through at times. It's not necessarily unhealthy, just as borrowing money (leveraging) isn't necessarily unhealthy. The key to deleveraging, though, is that it takes a long time. People can't just immediately shed loans. The process of, say, moving to a different house, selling a house, or selling other assets and paying off debts, can take months. So, although the housing price drops started affecting people as much as a couple of years ago, we are still feeling the aftershocks of deleveraging adjustments.
Bank regulation
I will leave the broader question of whether we have too much or too little bank regulation alone, but I am going to argue that in some very specific ways the regulation scheme is causing a problem. Banks, right now, are having a hard time raising money. There is a lot of money out there, though, so why can't banks get it?
1) People are unsure how to assess risks right now, because the various bond rating schemes and whatnot clearly did not protect investors (such as foreign sovereign wealth funds) as much as was expected in the last year or two. Regulators are causing a further moral hazard by bailing companies out, which makes risk hinge as much on the likelihood of a bailout as on the inhereny stability of a bank's finances.
2) Hedge funds and private equity are restricted by rules that cap their ownership of banks at 25%. It's understandable that banking regulations should apply to companies that own banks, even if they don't refer to themselves as banks, but right now, that means that places like Lehman can't get any more money from Blackstone.
Housing prices
A lot of imaginary wealth was created in housing prices. Housing prices are only fundamentally affected by a few factors: population, construction costs, availability of land (and zoning) and incomes. Housing prices in most places rapidly ran away from the fundamentals. When I offered my old landlord $625,000 for a house that he thought was worth $900,000, I was probably still offering too much. I'm saying that many of these houses were overvalued by 50-100%. That's a lot. As that funny money evaporates, individuals and corporations feel poorer. In a sense, they are. There is no way for that adjustment to occur without the prices continuing to fall and people continuing to adjust their finances to compensate.
Furthermore, both banks and individuals need to be punished for what they did. Banks shouldn't have been loaning money so freely, and consumers CERTAINLY shouldn't have been bidding the prices of houses up so high. Unpleasant as it sounds, the quickest way to get back into equilibrium is probably to let banks and individuals suffer quite a bit because of their bad investment decisions.
Right now we have uncertain interest rates, uncertain credit availability, arcane financing rules, uncertainty about further bailouts and uncertainty about further stimulus packages. It's impossible to make these things certain, but the Fed and the Treasury should take a line like this:
We'll keep the interest rates as low as we can, but we're going to hold non-energy, non-food, non-mining products inflation constant. We're not going to bail anyone out unless it's imperative for the economy. People who made bad decisions are going to have to adjust to the way prices are now. We're going to find a way to let the money that's out there flow into the banking system to help equilibrate things and support loan prices. And, in the future, the banking and financial insurance industries are going to be rationalized to have less regulation that works better.
There are many aspects to this crisis, but I want to focus on three, very specific issues: consumer deleveraging, bank regulation, and housing prices.
Consumer deleveraging
Deleveraging, or shedding debt, is a process that both corporations and individuals go through at times. It's not necessarily unhealthy, just as borrowing money (leveraging) isn't necessarily unhealthy. The key to deleveraging, though, is that it takes a long time. People can't just immediately shed loans. The process of, say, moving to a different house, selling a house, or selling other assets and paying off debts, can take months. So, although the housing price drops started affecting people as much as a couple of years ago, we are still feeling the aftershocks of deleveraging adjustments.
Bank regulation
I will leave the broader question of whether we have too much or too little bank regulation alone, but I am going to argue that in some very specific ways the regulation scheme is causing a problem. Banks, right now, are having a hard time raising money. There is a lot of money out there, though, so why can't banks get it?
1) People are unsure how to assess risks right now, because the various bond rating schemes and whatnot clearly did not protect investors (such as foreign sovereign wealth funds) as much as was expected in the last year or two. Regulators are causing a further moral hazard by bailing companies out, which makes risk hinge as much on the likelihood of a bailout as on the inhereny stability of a bank's finances.
2) Hedge funds and private equity are restricted by rules that cap their ownership of banks at 25%. It's understandable that banking regulations should apply to companies that own banks, even if they don't refer to themselves as banks, but right now, that means that places like Lehman can't get any more money from Blackstone.
Housing prices
A lot of imaginary wealth was created in housing prices. Housing prices are only fundamentally affected by a few factors: population, construction costs, availability of land (and zoning) and incomes. Housing prices in most places rapidly ran away from the fundamentals. When I offered my old landlord $625,000 for a house that he thought was worth $900,000, I was probably still offering too much. I'm saying that many of these houses were overvalued by 50-100%. That's a lot. As that funny money evaporates, individuals and corporations feel poorer. In a sense, they are. There is no way for that adjustment to occur without the prices continuing to fall and people continuing to adjust their finances to compensate.
Furthermore, both banks and individuals need to be punished for what they did. Banks shouldn't have been loaning money so freely, and consumers CERTAINLY shouldn't have been bidding the prices of houses up so high. Unpleasant as it sounds, the quickest way to get back into equilibrium is probably to let banks and individuals suffer quite a bit because of their bad investment decisions.
Right now we have uncertain interest rates, uncertain credit availability, arcane financing rules, uncertainty about further bailouts and uncertainty about further stimulus packages. It's impossible to make these things certain, but the Fed and the Treasury should take a line like this:
We'll keep the interest rates as low as we can, but we're going to hold non-energy, non-food, non-mining products inflation constant. We're not going to bail anyone out unless it's imperative for the economy. People who made bad decisions are going to have to adjust to the way prices are now. We're going to find a way to let the money that's out there flow into the banking system to help equilibrate things and support loan prices. And, in the future, the banking and financial insurance industries are going to be rationalized to have less regulation that works better.
Con Artists
I just got wrapped up in an elaborate con attempt. I was in Starbucks, preparing to order my customary grande Mocha Light Frappuccino, and the guy in front of me in line (about 65, smallish, dressed like a middle-class grandpa, with some kind of Eastern European accent) was really chatting up the girl behind the counter. He was making all kinds of jokes and turning to me and trying to include me in his banter. I was sort of half-heartedly participating by saying things like, "Boy, you said it!" and "Yep! We all do!" and stuff like that. Then he suddenly asks me what I'm going to have. I realized he was trying to buy my drink. At first I assumed this attempt was genuine; he's a lonely old man trying to make friends. Just then, though, three women walk up behind us.
They were very nice looking women without actually being attractive, if that makes sense. All three were about 45 years old, 2 were Vietnamese, and 1 White. All three were wearing lots of makeup and jewelry and were dressed more or less like 45-year-old moms would dress. I think they were probably on their lunch break from work.
The old guy starts chatting them up, too. He's saying ridiculous things, like "Ladies, ladies... NO smiling." And they all kinda start faux giggling. One of them kinda mock-punches another one on the shoulder, and the guy jumps in. He goes, "No, no. Don't hit her! Hit me!" And then he grabs one of their hands and starts hitting himself with it. Then he kisses her hand. They all start laughing more. I think this was the most exciting thing that had happened to these ladies since the last time they watched Mamma Mia! Anyway, during this whole thing, the old guy is also "paying" for his stuff. He hands the cashier a credit card, but he also hands her a $5 bill. He keeps saying something about a tip and asking what I want (as if he was attempting to buy what I wanted for me). This goes on for about 2 minutes. Finally, the cashier says that the card has been denied, but the total of all the stuff the guy was trying to buy was about $18 (he had a bunch of little cookies and other things in packages, a sandwich, a mug, and some drink). At this point I started to get suspicious.
My drink, which I had ordered, by yelling to the barrista, "I'll have my usual" during the confusion, was now ready. The old man sort of tried to claim my drink as part of his stuff and was insisting that the cashier "force his credit card through," whatever that means. Another barrista-girl came and rang me up, and I finally had to put my arm on the guy's shoulder and say rather forcefully, "Thank you, but I'll pay for it." He then backed off and as I walked away and the three ladies were looking in the display case, he kinda walked outside, leaving the merch on the counter. Then, as I was sitting down, I saw him hop on his old bike and ride away.
I'm not sure if his angle was:
1) To get the girl to pocket the $5 and "override" his credit card rejection.
2) To get me to pay for his stuff
3) To get the women to buy his stuff
4) To get SB to give him more than $5 worth of stuff for $5.
Whatever it was, it didn't work.
They were very nice looking women without actually being attractive, if that makes sense. All three were about 45 years old, 2 were Vietnamese, and 1 White. All three were wearing lots of makeup and jewelry and were dressed more or less like 45-year-old moms would dress. I think they were probably on their lunch break from work.
The old guy starts chatting them up, too. He's saying ridiculous things, like "Ladies, ladies... NO smiling." And they all kinda start faux giggling. One of them kinda mock-punches another one on the shoulder, and the guy jumps in. He goes, "No, no. Don't hit her! Hit me!" And then he grabs one of their hands and starts hitting himself with it. Then he kisses her hand. They all start laughing more. I think this was the most exciting thing that had happened to these ladies since the last time they watched Mamma Mia! Anyway, during this whole thing, the old guy is also "paying" for his stuff. He hands the cashier a credit card, but he also hands her a $5 bill. He keeps saying something about a tip and asking what I want (as if he was attempting to buy what I wanted for me). This goes on for about 2 minutes. Finally, the cashier says that the card has been denied, but the total of all the stuff the guy was trying to buy was about $18 (he had a bunch of little cookies and other things in packages, a sandwich, a mug, and some drink). At this point I started to get suspicious.
My drink, which I had ordered, by yelling to the barrista, "I'll have my usual" during the confusion, was now ready. The old man sort of tried to claim my drink as part of his stuff and was insisting that the cashier "force his credit card through," whatever that means. Another barrista-girl came and rang me up, and I finally had to put my arm on the guy's shoulder and say rather forcefully, "Thank you, but I'll pay for it." He then backed off and as I walked away and the three ladies were looking in the display case, he kinda walked outside, leaving the merch on the counter. Then, as I was sitting down, I saw him hop on his old bike and ride away.
I'm not sure if his angle was:
1) To get the girl to pocket the $5 and "override" his credit card rejection.
2) To get me to pay for his stuff
3) To get the women to buy his stuff
4) To get SB to give him more than $5 worth of stuff for $5.
Whatever it was, it didn't work.
Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is
I just donated $50 to Presidential campaigns. I donated $25 to the Barack Obama campaign and $25 to the John McCain campaign.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Exact Postage
I successfully put exact postage on something today by using a $0.63 stamp, three $0.17 stamps, and a $0.03 stamp. For some reason putting exact postage on things always feels like a great achievement to me. It's like playing Tetris with money.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
My Life for Aiur
One of my coworkers has this license plate. I don't know which one it is, yet.
I can't wait for SC2.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Greed
People who have few motivations other than self-promotion and money tend to see events from the perspective of how it would enable them to loot somebody.
The Iraq War is not about looting Iraq, nor has it ever been. It is also not somehow a way for George Bush or Dick Cheney to get rich. This is naive and distracting from the real and important issues. These things are what's called "conspiracy theories." Conspiracy theories have only three sources, of which I'm aware:
1) Boredom - People come up with conspiracy theories because they're "fun" or "interesting."
2) Naivite - People believe in conspiracy theories because they don't know enough to realize how improbable the theory really is.
3) Lazyness - People believe in conspiracy theories because it's easier to believe some powerful force is keeping them down (or ignorant) than to face the facts that: a) everything is not perfect and b) it takes a lot of effort to (still imperfectly) understand complex things.
Ironically, a real conspiracy, supported by real evidence, would not be a conspiracy theory like what I am describing. By "real evidence" I don't simply mean, "circumstantial, confirming statements." You can come up with circumstantial, confirming statements for anything. Here's an example:
Arizona causes pneumonia.
--The rate of pneumonia is 4x higher in Arizona, even though AZ has relatively low amounts of air pollution. How can that be? There must be some SECRET thing in AZ causing pneumonia!
--WRONG - old people move to AZ, and old people get pneumonia way more often. There's nothing to the 'conspiracy.' I know you may take offense at this, but most of you people who think that Dick Cheney organized the Iraq War as part of some grand conspiracy to help his former employer sound just as ludicrous as my Arizona example does. The military-industrial complex is far smaller now than it has been, on average, since World War II. It isn't likely to grow significantly, as compared with the Nation's GDP, either.
The Iraq War has never been about greed. But when you, yourself, know no higher purposes than greed, it is hard for you to understand the complexity of what's really going on.
The Iraq War is not about looting Iraq, nor has it ever been. It is also not somehow a way for George Bush or Dick Cheney to get rich. This is naive and distracting from the real and important issues. These things are what's called "conspiracy theories." Conspiracy theories have only three sources, of which I'm aware:
1) Boredom - People come up with conspiracy theories because they're "fun" or "interesting."
2) Naivite - People believe in conspiracy theories because they don't know enough to realize how improbable the theory really is.
3) Lazyness - People believe in conspiracy theories because it's easier to believe some powerful force is keeping them down (or ignorant) than to face the facts that: a) everything is not perfect and b) it takes a lot of effort to (still imperfectly) understand complex things.
Ironically, a real conspiracy, supported by real evidence, would not be a conspiracy theory like what I am describing. By "real evidence" I don't simply mean, "circumstantial, confirming statements." You can come up with circumstantial, confirming statements for anything. Here's an example:
Arizona causes pneumonia.
--The rate of pneumonia is 4x higher in Arizona, even though AZ has relatively low amounts of air pollution. How can that be? There must be some SECRET thing in AZ causing pneumonia!
--WRONG - old people move to AZ, and old people get pneumonia way more often. There's nothing to the 'conspiracy.' I know you may take offense at this, but most of you people who think that Dick Cheney organized the Iraq War as part of some grand conspiracy to help his former employer sound just as ludicrous as my Arizona example does. The military-industrial complex is far smaller now than it has been, on average, since World War II. It isn't likely to grow significantly, as compared with the Nation's GDP, either.
The Iraq War has never been about greed. But when you, yourself, know no higher purposes than greed, it is hard for you to understand the complexity of what's really going on.
The Case Against McCain
For those of you who think McCain is so terrible, I offer this from Pat Buchanan:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/02/top-10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-mccain/
I think it's important to see what the xenophobic, bigoted part of the right thinks of McCain, because it's very instructive about what he's really like (very moderate and reasonable).
I offer you this Sophie's choice: Admit McCain is a pretty cool guy or admit that you agree with Pat Buchanan.
PS - I still like Obama, too.
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/02/top-10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-mccain/
I think it's important to see what the xenophobic, bigoted part of the right thinks of McCain, because it's very instructive about what he's really like (very moderate and reasonable).
I offer you this Sophie's choice: Admit McCain is a pretty cool guy or admit that you agree with Pat Buchanan.
PS - I still like Obama, too.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Sunk Costs
Humans have an irrational, but very natural, tendency to overvalue "sunk costs." In fact, the correct value of sunk costs is always exactly $0.
Here's an example: You've spent $1,000,000 so far, inventing a better widget. You've been working on it for a year. Tomorrow, you will wake up and be faced with this (weird) choice: either spend another $500,000 to finish the widget, or buy a patent from someone for their widget, which does exactly what you want your widget to do, for $499,999.
It is tempting to somehow think, "If I spend the other $500,000, I'll have something worth $1,500,000, whereas if I buy the other widget, I'll have something only worth $499,999." Ignoring the possibility that you've actually created some prototype widgets which, themselves, have value, this thinking is incorrect.
If you forget about tax consequences for a second, it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference how much you've already spent in the past, all that matters is what choices you have NOW, going forward. If the 2 widgets are equally useful, then you can either spend $500,000 to get the widget or $499,999 to get an equivalent widget. You should choose the cheaper option, regardless of whether or not it makes the previous $1,000,000 "a waste."
So, many people have a tendency to throw good money after bad, and to stick to projects that they've already "invested" a lot in, when, in fact, they should usually be ignoring what they have already invested. Even when people understand this concept as it relates to business, though, they often fail to realize that it should apply to all aspects of life. It doesn't matter how much time you've put into convincing someone to act a certain way or teaching yourself a certain skill. All that matters is "What are my options going forward?" A careful evaluation of these options will account for the possibility that "finishing something" is more efficient than dropping it and picking it back up later. For example, it might be "worth it" financially, to quit college and take a job. However, it might be "hard" to re-enter college later, and so it's "worth" losing money now to finish college now. One must be careful not to confuse that with the more sinister, "Well, I've gone this far, I ought to stick with it." That line of thinking is virtually useless.
If it doesn't make sense to be doing something, anymore, you should stop doing it, no matter how much you've invested in it so far.
Here's an example: You've spent $1,000,000 so far, inventing a better widget. You've been working on it for a year. Tomorrow, you will wake up and be faced with this (weird) choice: either spend another $500,000 to finish the widget, or buy a patent from someone for their widget, which does exactly what you want your widget to do, for $499,999.
It is tempting to somehow think, "If I spend the other $500,000, I'll have something worth $1,500,000, whereas if I buy the other widget, I'll have something only worth $499,999." Ignoring the possibility that you've actually created some prototype widgets which, themselves, have value, this thinking is incorrect.
If you forget about tax consequences for a second, it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference how much you've already spent in the past, all that matters is what choices you have NOW, going forward. If the 2 widgets are equally useful, then you can either spend $500,000 to get the widget or $499,999 to get an equivalent widget. You should choose the cheaper option, regardless of whether or not it makes the previous $1,000,000 "a waste."
So, many people have a tendency to throw good money after bad, and to stick to projects that they've already "invested" a lot in, when, in fact, they should usually be ignoring what they have already invested. Even when people understand this concept as it relates to business, though, they often fail to realize that it should apply to all aspects of life. It doesn't matter how much time you've put into convincing someone to act a certain way or teaching yourself a certain skill. All that matters is "What are my options going forward?" A careful evaluation of these options will account for the possibility that "finishing something" is more efficient than dropping it and picking it back up later. For example, it might be "worth it" financially, to quit college and take a job. However, it might be "hard" to re-enter college later, and so it's "worth" losing money now to finish college now. One must be careful not to confuse that with the more sinister, "Well, I've gone this far, I ought to stick with it." That line of thinking is virtually useless.
If it doesn't make sense to be doing something, anymore, you should stop doing it, no matter how much you've invested in it so far.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Getting to Know Me
There are all sorts of ways that people publish their identity for others to consume: photobucket, myspace, bumper/band stickers, autobiographies, etc...
I hereby publish and announce my identity via this reading list:
1) Mackey - Lebanon: A House Divided
2) Everitt - Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor
3) Webb - Born Fighting: How the Scots Irish Shaped America
I hereby publish and announce my identity via this reading list:
1) Mackey - Lebanon: A House Divided
2) Everitt - Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor
3) Webb - Born Fighting: How the Scots Irish Shaped America
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Rita Hayworth
I love Rita Hayworth in The Lady From Shanghai, especially the part when she's lying on the deck of the yacht, singing.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Rotten Apples
I'm fed up with my iPhone. In fact, I'm fed up with Apple in general. Here is a brief overview of why Apple totally sucks:
1) Their computers suck. They are expensive, difficult to use, fail all the time, only have 1 mouse button, make you pay for what's supposed to be a free operating system, aren't totally compatible with most things, use a bunch of proprietary formats, insult the user continuously, and represent the school of thought that it's what on the outside of the computer that counts. It takes about a million hours of customization before you can do simple things like move windows around quickly. It takes another million hours to turn off all the idiotic visual effects that waste CPU. A third million hours is required to be able to use the keyboard, which is obviously required for speed, since there's only one mouse button.
2) Their crap is all about ergonomics and not about functionality. Apple is the new Sony. Their stuff is proprietary and they allow people to develop for it only grudgingly. It is obviously Apple's goal to sell you all the software you own at super high prices - have you not noticed this?
3) Macs are not better for graphics. They have never been better for graphics. This is a bunch of crap. The only people who think this are people who never used sophisticated graphics hardware or software on a SGI or a PC. I have never found a Mac to be the better value for gaming. I have never found a Mac to offer the most impressive graphics performance for gaming. I see no reason why a large-scale rendering farm would benefit from using Macs. I know of no serious movies that were rendered using Macs. Even if there was one, I would question why it was rendered on Macs, since they do not offer better performance. I know of no software for the Mac that doesn't have a similar offering (or probably 40 similar offerings) on the PC or a Linux format.
4) The iPhone is overrated. My iPhone software crashes or goes weirdo all the time. iTunes sucks and is slow. I've had one iPhone replaced because the first one broke. The "genius bar" insulted me repeatedly telling me that I had physically tampered with the headphone jack on the broken iPhone, which I did not. They kept offering me training classes about how to use my computer and to use the Internet more productively. My current iPhone gets super hot for no reason, goes really slow sometimes for no reason, and a day doesn't go by in which I don't experience weird behavior or bugs. There are so many quirks to how the iPhone software works that I sometimes am surprised when it is functioning normally. The main feature of my iPhone is as a phone, but the call and sound quality on the iPhone is poor, the bluetooth functionality is nerfed, and there is no service available for Verizon, which has the best coverage, in my experience. There are tons of ludicrous design flaws, like the inability to continue loading web pages with the screen turned off. The camera totally sucks. The navigation system on the iPhone totally sucks. The navigation system on my Chocolate from Verizon a couple years ago was vastly superior, so I know it's possible to make that system work.
5) Apple zealots. I don't like these people and I don't ever want to be associated with them. They are arrogant, smug, and insulting.
6) The whole "computers for schools" thing is the most transparent bunch of crap. I hate Microsoft, because they made a bunch of shady licensing deals and stifled competition. But I draw the line at convincing schools to pay extra money for computers they don't need. Kids should be learning how to use Linux and Windows, since they're the most important and common operations systems. It'd be like convincing driver training classes to buy Volkswagon Beetles. Why would you want this? Learning to drive it is less transferrable to other things, and it's more expensive that a 'regular looking' car of comparable performance.
I will be looking for a replacement device for my iPhone starting right now. I used to recommend Macs sometimes to people who were computer illiterate, but I won't be doing this for the foreseeable future. Vista is far easier to use and more stable now than the Mac OS. Computers with Vista seem to be far cheaper. Vista is more compatible with other systems in the world for most users.
Apple sucks. I'm tired of being told by people who know very little about computers how great their MacBook or iPhone is. I've been using an iPhone for quite a while now. It is nothing special. Even if it didn't have a bunch of bugs, it wouldn't be a revolutionary device. It's time for a crop of better devices to supplant it. Go to hell, Apple.
1) Their computers suck. They are expensive, difficult to use, fail all the time, only have 1 mouse button, make you pay for what's supposed to be a free operating system, aren't totally compatible with most things, use a bunch of proprietary formats, insult the user continuously, and represent the school of thought that it's what on the outside of the computer that counts. It takes about a million hours of customization before you can do simple things like move windows around quickly. It takes another million hours to turn off all the idiotic visual effects that waste CPU. A third million hours is required to be able to use the keyboard, which is obviously required for speed, since there's only one mouse button.
2) Their crap is all about ergonomics and not about functionality. Apple is the new Sony. Their stuff is proprietary and they allow people to develop for it only grudgingly. It is obviously Apple's goal to sell you all the software you own at super high prices - have you not noticed this?
3) Macs are not better for graphics. They have never been better for graphics. This is a bunch of crap. The only people who think this are people who never used sophisticated graphics hardware or software on a SGI or a PC. I have never found a Mac to be the better value for gaming. I have never found a Mac to offer the most impressive graphics performance for gaming. I see no reason why a large-scale rendering farm would benefit from using Macs. I know of no serious movies that were rendered using Macs. Even if there was one, I would question why it was rendered on Macs, since they do not offer better performance. I know of no software for the Mac that doesn't have a similar offering (or probably 40 similar offerings) on the PC or a Linux format.
4) The iPhone is overrated. My iPhone software crashes or goes weirdo all the time. iTunes sucks and is slow. I've had one iPhone replaced because the first one broke. The "genius bar" insulted me repeatedly telling me that I had physically tampered with the headphone jack on the broken iPhone, which I did not. They kept offering me training classes about how to use my computer and to use the Internet more productively. My current iPhone gets super hot for no reason, goes really slow sometimes for no reason, and a day doesn't go by in which I don't experience weird behavior or bugs. There are so many quirks to how the iPhone software works that I sometimes am surprised when it is functioning normally. The main feature of my iPhone is as a phone, but the call and sound quality on the iPhone is poor, the bluetooth functionality is nerfed, and there is no service available for Verizon, which has the best coverage, in my experience. There are tons of ludicrous design flaws, like the inability to continue loading web pages with the screen turned off. The camera totally sucks. The navigation system on the iPhone totally sucks. The navigation system on my Chocolate from Verizon a couple years ago was vastly superior, so I know it's possible to make that system work.
5) Apple zealots. I don't like these people and I don't ever want to be associated with them. They are arrogant, smug, and insulting.
6) The whole "computers for schools" thing is the most transparent bunch of crap. I hate Microsoft, because they made a bunch of shady licensing deals and stifled competition. But I draw the line at convincing schools to pay extra money for computers they don't need. Kids should be learning how to use Linux and Windows, since they're the most important and common operations systems. It'd be like convincing driver training classes to buy Volkswagon Beetles. Why would you want this? Learning to drive it is less transferrable to other things, and it's more expensive that a 'regular looking' car of comparable performance.
I will be looking for a replacement device for my iPhone starting right now. I used to recommend Macs sometimes to people who were computer illiterate, but I won't be doing this for the foreseeable future. Vista is far easier to use and more stable now than the Mac OS. Computers with Vista seem to be far cheaper. Vista is more compatible with other systems in the world for most users.
Apple sucks. I'm tired of being told by people who know very little about computers how great their MacBook or iPhone is. I've been using an iPhone for quite a while now. It is nothing special. Even if it didn't have a bunch of bugs, it wouldn't be a revolutionary device. It's time for a crop of better devices to supplant it. Go to hell, Apple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
