Category Archives: Web Article Review

self-parking cars

This article in Governing makes the case that a big impact of self-driving cars will be on the amount of land used for parking:

First, self-driving cars need less room to self-park, making it possible to squeeze more cars into a garage — up to 60 percent more, according to Audi. Second, parking garages would no longer have to be located downtown — drivers and their passengers could exit the vehicles in the city and the cars would self-drive to the garages on the downtown’s periphery. Third, with garages capable of storing more cars, cities wouldn’t need to devote so much space for curbside parking, freeing up valuable land for public transit, pedestrians and bicyclists, and reducing the congestion that comes from drivers searching for a place to park…

Self-driving technology can park a car so precisely that lanes with a width of three meters are adequate, leaving just 10 centimeters of space between the mirrors of parked cars, according to Audi. By packing more cars into less space, the company says that the amount of parking can be reduced by as much as 60 to 80 percent in some cases.

U.S. Fascism?

Is it even remotely possible that the U.S. could go down a Fascist path? I don’t know. Let’s first ask if the U.S. unequivocally qualifies as a democracy. If you set the lowest possible bar, democracy could just mean that government leaders are nominally chosen by majority vote, and there is therefore a process for non-violent change of government. We pass that test. A better definition though, in my view, would be that there is a process for choosing government policies that represent a consensus among most of the people, and that represent a compromise reflecting the interests of most of the people. We clearly do not have this. We clearly have policies that represent the interests of a relatively small class of political and business elites, and we have an entrenched political party system that presents almost insurmountable obstacles to anyone who might seriously challenge that social order. It would take widespread violence or civil disobedience to do that, which is the opposite of a functioning democratic political system. So we have a fairly rigid social order enforced by traditional elites.

If our definition of fascism involves jack boots and arm bands and cattle cars, clearly we are not even close, thank goodness. But could we be headed there? What is a registry database for a small minority religious group, if not a modern version of the armband? Robert Paxton’s stages of fascism start with a sense of victim-hood, nationalism based on religion or ethnicity, anger, and some external or internal enemy to blame. We seem to have these ingredients, at least among the angry white men supporting Donald Trump. Next comes a charismatic leader. I don’t find Donald charismatic, but some people clearly do. Next comes acceptance of the extremists by the conservative establishment because they are not strong enough to govern on their own. I don’t think we are there yet, but we did have the recent capitulation of the more moderate conservative elements in Congress to the Tea Party extremists. After these stages come the assumption of power and exercise of power. That is hard to imagine, but we will find out by this time next year.

I still think Donald Trump is a clown. An amoral attention-seeking clown at best, a Fascist clown at worst. It is reassuring that demographics continue to shift so that angry white men can’t just always get their way, no matter how loud and menacing they are. But I am getting just a bit worried. More geopolitical turbulence or random acts of violence in the next year could shift more people into a scared, angry state of mind where they are more open to the extremist rhetoric.

bacteria vs. cancer

Here’s a bizarre article in New Yorker about curing a terminal brain tumor by purposely causing a serious but treatable brain infection.

The tumor had spread to his brain stem and was shortly expected to kill him. Muizelaar cut out as much of the tumor as possible. But before he replaced the “bone flap”—the section of skull that is removed to allow access to the brain—he soaked it for an hour in a solution teeming with Enterobacter aerogenes, a common fecal bacterium. Then he reattached it to Egan’s skull, using tiny metal plates and screws. Muizelaar hoped that inside Egan’s brain an infection was brewing…

For four weeks, Egan lay in intensive care, most of the time in a coma. Then, on the afternoon of November 10th, Muizelaar learned that a scan of Egan’s brain had failed to pick up the distinctive signature of glioblastoma. The pattern on the scan suggested that the tumor had been replaced by an abscess—an infection—precisely as the surgeons had intended. “A brain abscess can be treated, a glioblastoma cannot,” Muizelaar told me.

I almost called this post “shit for brains”, then I grew up just a little bit.

Ericsson predictions for 2016

It’s about that time of year for predictions and trends. Ericsson has some for the next 5 years:

  • They say early adopters no longer matter for communication technologies, because new ones achieve mass market status so fast.
  • “Artificial Intelligence (AI) will enable interaction with objects without the need for a smartphone screen…Smartphone users believe AI will take over many common activities, such as searching the net, getting travel guidance and as personal assistants. These are areas already being addressed by current generation AI interfaces in smartphones. But the desire to use AI for more advanced purposes is apparent. 44 percent think an AI system would be good as a teacher and one third would like an AI interface to keep them company. Furthermore, a third would even rather trust the fidelity of an AI interface than a human for sensitive matters. 29 percent agree they would feel more comfortable discussing their medical condition with an AI system.”
  • Virtual reality will start to come into its own for tech support, sports, dating, and shopping.
  • ” sensors could be integrated into bricks and mortar in your house, literally connecting your home from the ground up. “
  • “Judging by consumer interest, the next generation of body-monitoring technology may not be worn, but may instead be found within the human body. These ‘internables’ will initially have a similar focus to the current external body monitoring devices. Half of all smartphone users believe internal sensors will give updates on their health and wellbeing in three years.”

guns in the U.S.

Does the United States have a gun problem? There are facts and figures, and there are emotions. You are not a normal human being if you don’t react emotionally to certain kinds of events, and being in touch with these emotions can be a good guide to what you think is right and wrong. Then again, I believe any human being within the normal range can be trained to dig into the facts and evidence, draw appropriate conclusions and build their own personal mental model of the world. Once you have a sense of what you think is right and wrong, this is how you figure out what you think can and should be done about it. So, I’m going to quote from an article that caused a strong emotional reaction from me (warning, it’s probably upsetting to almost anyone but especially parents), and then I’ll go to some facts and figures that I find disturbing on an intellectual level, but also point toward some ideas about what can and should be done.

If you are not emotionally dead, you will be horrified by this stomach-churning New York  Times article about children who are killed accidentally by guns.

It had been a good day for Tristan. He had used the potty for the first time. He and his mother had danced a little jig. Down the hall, Tristan entered the bedroom where his father had been staying because of quarrels with his wife. She had chided her husband in the past for forgetting to safely store his .45-caliber handgun. But he had recently put a lock on his door to keep out his wife and children. He thought he had locked the door before going out to cut the grass.

The lock, though, had failed to catch. Tristan found the loaded gun under the pillow on his father’s bed. He pointed it at his own forehead and pulled the trigger. Hearing the gunshot, Sergeant Underhill sprinted inside to find Tristan face down on the bed, the gun beneath him. When he called 911, the sergeant was screaming so hysterically that the dispatcher initially mistook him for a woman.

“My 2-year-old just shot himself in the head,” he said breathlessly. “He’s dead.”

There’s a picture of the kid alive and happy, which makes it infinitely worse. That’s one horrifying anecdote in this story. It goes on and on and on.

That’s the horror. Let’s turn to some cold facts and figures. Here’s a blog posting called “Deaths from assault over time in 40 relatively rich countries“. Other rich countries do not have the level of violence that we have in the United States. If you are the evidence-inclined type, have a look at the graphics and note that they are on a log scale. The United States has a rate of violent death 5-10 times higher than our close cultural cousins like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. And all these places have a little bit higher rates than most of Western Europe and Asia. The places with rates equal or higher than the United States are developing countries and/or countries with organized crime on a large scale.

So is the easy accessibility of firearms the cause of violence? I tend to think tough guy culture (one thing that is unmistakable in both articles is that men and boys are the ones shooting and being shot), a history of inequality and racial discrimination, and the so-called war on drugs are the real drivers. These are the policy levers we need to be working in the medium to longer term. But being awash in guns certainly makes the violence that does occur more deadly. Common sense gun control policies would certainly be great in the short term to treat the symptoms, as long as they are backed up by policies to treat the disease. But hard-core, violent law enforcement approaches to treat the symptoms may actually make the disease worse in the long term, which is probably what happened in the 80s and 90s that we are continuing to pay for today.

infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure

Hillary wants to spend $250 billion on infrastructure. Bernie wants to spend $1 trillion. Infrastructure investment is good. Economists all say so. Politicians who care at least a little about reality all say so. The American Society of Civil Engineers says so. I happen to be a civil engineer so it is definitely good for me.

The idea is that the infrastructure we have in the ground now wears out gradually, and we almost never do enough maintenance to keep it in its original condition. So there is a constant loss of value to the economy. You can also think of infrastructure as reducing friction, transaction costs, wasted time, effort, and energy in the economy. If people and goods can get where they need to go efficiently and cheaply, they can do more productive work and produce more value each day with less waste. The same idea applies to getting energy and water around. Finally, there is the economic idea that when economic growth is below capacity, as it is now, you could pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again, and there would be a net economic gain. So any infrastructure investment, even if it is not optimal, has even more benefit and it is a sort of free lunch, something for nothing, two birds with one stone. And interest rates are so low that it makes sense for the government to borrow money, or even print it, and realize this almost automatic, guaranteed, magical return on the investment. Politicians who oppose infrastructure investment on debt or deficit grounds just don’t understand or don’t care about reality, or else they are telling a cynically calculated story to people who don’t.

Optimal, planned infrastructure investment would be even better, of course. We really don’t do any planning at the national scale in the United States. Maybe we are still trying to differentiate ourselves from the Soviet planned economy, but seriously, it is time to get over that particular hangover.

I like Elon Musk’s Hyperloop because it is a big idea and it asks if we should be considering something bold, big, and different, not to mention more efficient and cost-effective than the same old ideas from the 1950s! But we need to remember infrastructure is not just about transportation, it is about energy, water resources, food, commerce, trade, information, environmental quality and ecosystems. Infrastructure has an ecological footprint which needs to be measured and considered in decisions. Let’s think big, take a holistic, long-term look at the whole system, and ask what kinds of investments would be best. What kind of integrated infrastructure system do we think would make sense in the future, and what steps would we take today to get there? One of the hard things about infrastructure, though, is that it is long-lived. The technology available actually changes much faster than the infrastructure wears out, so blindly repairing and perpetuating old infrastructure ends up retarding the pace of change. A good plan needs to take a long-term view, but it has to be flexible enough to adapt to changing technology, environmental, climate and socioeconomic conditions during the course of its implementation. This is the essence of good planning, but it is hard for many of today’s hyper-specialized, local- and short-term-thinking professionals to pull off.

children and patterns

Here’s an interesting article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about Laszlo Polgár, a Hungarian who set out to turn his daughters into chess prodigies, and succeeded. A few interesting quotes:

There are three Polgár sisters, Zsuzsa (Susan), Zsofia (Sofia), and Judit: all chess prodigies, raised by Laszlo and Klara in Budapest during the Cold War. Rearing them in modest conditions, where a walk to the stationery store was a great event, the Polgárs homeschooled their girls, defying a skeptical and chauvinist Communist system. They lived chess, often practicing for eight hours a day. By the end of the 1980s, the family had become a phenomenon: wealthy, stars in Hungary and, when they visited the United States, headline news…

Laszlo believed that physical fitness was vital to intellectual success, so the girls played table tennis several hours a day, on top of their full day of chess and schooling. The parents were tireless in their devotion, buying every chess book they could, cutting out pages with past games, gluing them to cards, and storing it all in an old card catalog. They assembled more than 100,000 games; at the time, only the Soviet Union’s restricted chess archive could match it…

By the late 1980s, researchers had established that, contrary to what you might imagine, chess masters don’t tend to anticipate more moves as they gain skill. Rather, they gain expertise in recognizing patterns of the board, and patterns built out of those patterns. A question remained, however: How do they gain those skills? …

The focus of the article is on “nature vs. nurture” and the “10,000 hour rule” or “practice makes perfect”. What caught my attention though is the idea that children have a natural aptitude for pattern recognition. And systems are about patterns. I am thinking about H.T. Odum’s beautiful system diagrams, which are essentially circuits depicting the energy flows through any type of system. The building blocks are simple but they can be combined to describe very complex behavior in systems of any physical type. (Odum would have said they describe all the important aspects of social and economic systems too, but I haven’t decided if I agree with that yet.) So if young children of roughly average mental aptitude can memorize patterns in chess, could they learn to memorize Odum’s system patterns through repetition, perhaps through games? And if all children learned general systems theory in this way, could they be prodigies in solving the world’s complex problems later on? Are we focusing on entirely the wrong things in school?

how do you value data?

This article lists six ways a company or organization can try to value its data:

  1. Intrinsic value of information. The model quantifies data quality by breaking it into characteristics such as accuracy, accessibility and completeness.
  2. Business value of information. This model measures data characteristics in relation to one or more business processes. Accuracy and completeness, for example, are evaluated, as is timeliness…
  3. Performance value of information…measures the data’s impact on one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) over time
  4. Cost value of information. This model measures the cost of “acquiring or replacing lost information.”
  5. Economic value of information. This model measures how an information asset contributes to the revenue of an organization.
  6. Market value of information. This model measures revenue generated by“selling, renting or bartering” corporate data

Another article says that algorithms are becoming less valuable as data becomes more valuable.

Google is not risking much by putting its algorithms out there.

That’s because the real secret sauce that differentiates Google from everybody else in the world isn’t the algorithms—it’s the data, and in particular, the training data needed to get the algorithms performing at a high level.

“A company’s intellectual property and its competitive advantages are moving from their proprietary technology and algorithms to their proprietary data,” Biewald says. “As data becomes a more and more critical asset and algorithms less and less important, expect lots of companies to open source more and more of their algorithms.”

 

The internet is telling you what you want to hear

That’s right, the internet is telling you what you want to hear. In some cases, it really is government and corporate propaganda, known as “astroturfing“. This is the practice of creating a fake media buzz to give you the impression that there is grassroots support for something when there really isn’t:

Astroturfing is the attempt to create an impression of widespread grassroots support for a policy, individual, or product, where little such support exists. Multiple online identities and fake pressure groups are used to mislead the public into believing that the position of the astroturfer is the commonly held view.

Although usually associated with the internet, the practice has been widespread ever since newspaper editors first invented the letters page. Pick up any local paper around the time of an election and you will find multiple letters from “concerned residents of X” objecting to the disastrous policies of Y…

As reported by the Guardian, some big companies now use sophisticated “persona management software” to create armies of virtual astroturfers, complete with fake IP addresses, non-political interests and online histories. Authentic-looking profiles are generated automatically and developed for months or years before being brought into use for a political or corporate campaign. As the software improves, these astroturf armies will become increasingly difficult to spot, and the future of open debate online could become increasingly perilous.

The other thing going on is the “online filter bubble”, which is simply the idea that search and marketing algorithms are increasingly telling you what you want to hear. This makes sense in the logic of marketing, but is dangerous when you are trying to figure out what is going on in the world. From TED: