Category Archives: Web Article Review

The Gospel, Lavender, and Where’s Daddy?

An article in “+972 Magazine” makes some very attention getting claims about the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. On the one hand, it is based on anonymous sources, and if any of it is true it is surprising to me it has not turned up in more well known media outlets. On the other hand, it really makes a lot of logical sense to me in that it seems 100% consistent with facts on the ground. So I am summarizing it here as it is summarized in the magazine, and I encourage you to consider it seriously but with a healthy dose of skepticism.

First, they describe an Israeli program to identify likely Hamas associates based on statistics. People are assigned a score from 0 to 100, based on their likelihood of being associated with Hamas. The statistics are trained on cases known for sure to be associated with Hamas.

The book offers a short guide to building a “target machine,” similar in description to Lavender, based on AI and machine-learning algorithms. Included in this guide are several examples of the “hundreds and thousands” of features that can increase an individual’s rating, such as being in a Whatsapp group with a known militant, changing cell phone every few months, and changing addresses frequently. 

“The more information, and the more variety, the better,” the commander writes. “Visual information, cellular information, social media connections, battlefield information, phone contacts, photos.”

Since the October 7, 2023 attack, this story goes (I am going to stop saying this from here – I am relaying the story as this source explains it), a few things have changed. One is the increasing automation of the process, producing large numbers of potential targets. Second is the lowering of the threshold from the highest scoring targets to lower scoring ones.

He explained that when lowering the rating threshold of Lavender, it would mark more people as targets for strikes. “At its peak, the system managed to generate 37,000 people as potential human targets,” said B. “But the numbers changed all the time, because it depends on where you set the bar of what a Hamas operative is. There were times when a Hamas operative was defined more broadly, and then the machine started bringing us all kinds of civil defense personnel, police officers, on whom it would be a shame to waste bombs. They help the Hamas government, but they don’t really endanger soldiers.”

One source who worked with the military data science team that trained Lavender said that data collected from employees of the Hamas-run Internal Security Ministry, whom he does not consider to be militants, was also fed into the machine. “I was bothered by the fact that when Lavender was trained, they used the term ‘Hamas operative’ loosely, and included people who were civil defense workers in the training dataset,” he said.

The system is believed to be about 90% accurate, meaning 10% of the targets identified do not have links to Hamas, and Israeli leadership judged this to be acceptable collateral damage. But whatever you think of the morality of that judgment, it was the tip of a very large and very cold iceberg. Because the leadership also decided that to take these people out, it was acceptable to take out their extended families by leveling their homes in the middle of the night. The higher value the target, the greater number of innocent civilians the leadership judged to be acceptable to kill.

In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

So it kind of makes a very cold, calculated kind of logical sense from a certain point of view – the leadership believes it is under an existential threat, and they judge that killing 15-100 people for every combatant (which they are about 90% sure of) is acceptable to remove the threat.

I have to say this high a ratio does not seem morally acceptable to me. You can say “what about” the Allied bombings of German and Japanese cities in World War II, the score counting of “military aged males” in Vietnam, and whatever went on in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S.-enabled Saudi bombing of Yemen, etc. And you would be right – all of these are very likely immoral, in my view. Millions of wrongs don’t make a right.

A lot is made of the AI angle here, and that makes it a bit more chilling to me. Basically, technologies developed for marketing (by U.S. firms in many cases) are being applied to evil causes the Nazis, Stasi, the KGB or the Spanish Inquisition could only have dreamed of. I think the Israeli leadership believes what it is doing is morally justified, even if most reasonable people in the world might disagree. It’s horrible to imagine what a truly horrible, ill-intentioned regime might do with these technologies.

pandemic flu preppers

A major pandemic flu is coming…someday. Today? Tomorrow? Within the next four years while the United States government is staffed (I am not going to use the word “led”) by fools? Within the next 20 years? Nobody knows. Let’s hope it’s not the H5N1 “Captain Trips” variant. Anyway, the CDC was allowed to put out some useful educational information as recently as 2017, and there are lots of preppers out there talking about stocking up on camp stoves and what-not. One suggestion is to “give the gift of preparedness” during the holiday season. Not a bad idea, even if the people you were giving the gift of preparedness happened to think you were insane.

co-living – dormitories for grownups

Co-living “refers to buildings in which residents have their own lockable living and sleeping space but share a kitchen and other facilities”, according to smartcitiesdive.com. This would seem to make sense as an affordable housing option, but apparently is often prohibited by zoning.

These types of arrangements could also be set up by employers. In Asia, I get the sense that one reason unemployment and labor rates can both be low at the same time is that employers provide dormitories for workers who want or need them. It might not be glamorous, but if a relatively low-paying job comes with room and board, that could solve a number of economic and social issues that we don’t really seem to have much of an answer to here in the “western” world.

is the Chinese government suppression of Uyghurs real?

Max Blumenthal says the Uyghur suppression is based on a very small number of unreliable sources. Well, I first read about it in Der Spiegel, I think, and it has also been covered by the Guardian. My understanding is that it is a somewhat sinister use of technology to track large numbers of people, identify and preempt potential Islamic extremism. The Chinese government officials probably think it is justified to head off the potential for violence, and yet it probably meets the UN definition of cultural genocide. So I don’t have a verdict here, but I certainly don’t think it is made up. I do suspect we will see heavy surveillance and tracking regimes like this popping up elsewhere in the future, such as Gaza for instance.

why “free-flow” car sharing isn’t working in the U.S.

This article describes several attempts to create “free flow” car sharing services, where you can pick up and leave a car anywhere within a certain zone. This is in contrast to Zipcar’s “fixed model” where you have to leave the car where you found it. The article says the free flow model isn’t working well because the people it benefits most are lower-income people who do not otherwise have easy access to private or public transportation. But this market just does not have enough demand to cover the cost. This model is working well outside the U.S., and the article suggests one reason it does not work in the U.S. is the massive subsidies we have in place for private vehicle ownership with massive public funding for roads and parking. The car-highway-oil-sprawl industry propaganda is so entrenched that we can’t see these massive subsidies hidden in plain site. Take your red pills, people!

In October I passed the “car ownership free for 20 years” mark, which I am very proud of. I made it to the milestone through the stroller and car seat years, which was sometimes difficult. But I will say I have a Zipcar membership which I rarely use, and there are really two reasons. First is living in a walkable, public transportation oriented community. I simply don’t need a car most of the time, and I suspect the people who might currently be interested in car sharing are also the ones who value public transportation. But second, ride hailing has just gotten so convenient and it is much cheaper compared to Zipcar, so I really only use Zipcar if I am hauling something. It occurs to me that once cars can drive themselves (okay, they can now, but once the various institutional/legal/policy barriers are sorted) there will be less distinction between the two models, and car sharing will eventually go away. Public agencies can subsidize ride hailing if they want to, and I am actually concerned this will put downward pressure on the demand for traditional public transportation (buses, trains) and lead to doubling down on our poor low-density land use choices.

electric vehicle charging coils in roads

Yes, you can charge vehicles when they are moving, and there are already pilot projects in Detroit and at UCLA (and almost certainly abroad), according to this article. Installing more of these could be great because we might stop whining about how we can’t have nice electric vehicles because the charging infrastructure takes up too much space or takes too long. If solar panels along the road provide at least some of the power, you can start to imagine this providing a revenue stream to help maintain the roads, thus negating the argument that we can’t have nice things because only taxes on gasoline can be used to maintain the roads.

sidewalks

Sidewalks are important. Besides being (obviously?) part of the transportation system (because the purpose of a transportation system is to move people and goods from point A to point B, NOT to move your private motor vehicle from point A to point B), we can put trees in them, manage water and pollution in them, move water/electricity/gas/communications under them and over them, conduct business and engage in social interactions in them. In engineering lingo, they are part of the “public right of way” along with the street. This is why most U.S. cities recognize that they are a critical part of the urban public infrastructure…wait, what? They don’t? They pretend they are private property and put the onus on private property owners to keep them in a state that provides all these public amenities. The article I link to here compares sidewalk policy in U.S. cities and concludes that some are better than others.

election post-game

I’ve had a few days to process the election now. I’ve heard and pondered a variety of explanations for why it went so decisively in Trump’s favor. Here are a few thoughts.

  1. “A referendum on the Biden administration.” The economic pain felt by a large majority of voters is real. The root cause, somewhat obviously, is inequality. The inequality in turn is the result of decades of poor policy choices resulting in erosion in real wages for working people, regressive taxation, lack of government services and benefits that citizens of other developed countries take for granted, and destabilization of our planet’s biophysical life support system which allows us to grow food and live near coast lines. The thing is, people don’t react strongly to gradual changes. A complex system like the economy can be under stress for a long time and then break when subjected to an extreme event. The extreme event in this case was Covid-19 and the worldwide inflation that followed. This caused a very real and painful reduction in peoples’ disposable income, and they are understandably pissed off. Trump offers simple (but wrong) explanations and people to blame: Biden. Harris. Democrats. Immigrants. China. Then he offers simple (but wrong and counter-productive) fixes like tariffs and mass deportation of foreigners.
  2. Lack of critical thinking. I think there is something to this. The simplistic answers are wrong, and intelligent people should be able to see this but they are not. There is at least some possibility that Covid or testicle-shrinking chemicals in our food/air/water have made us all stupider than we used to be. But I don’t really believe this. So it is clearly a failure of the education system if a large majority of the people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, are not able to see through obvious illogical claims and false promises.
  3. Democrats’ lack of a clear alternative. The Democrats did not offer any easy to understand, coherent counter-narrative, and they do not have a track record they can point to suggesting they can reverse the decline in disposable income. I’ll let Bernie Sanders say it: “it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”
  4. Lack of talented leaders in politics. I loathe Trump and everything he stands for. But I went to the polls on Tuesday feeling like I was voting for the less bad of the two very limited options being offered to me. I did not find Harris to be visionary or inspiring. I can say the same about Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush. Barrack Obama was a talented, visionary, inspiring leader even though his policies were status quo in many ways. I find Bernie Sanders inspiring. I personally found Bill Clinton inspiring, although again his policies were quite conservative on any rational spectrum. And that’s it for the last three decades or so! But I see talented leaders at the state and local level, in corporations and non-profit organizations and universities all the time. In a nation of 350 million odd people, there have to be thousands if not tens of thousands of people with leadership potential. Our political system is not identifying these people, inspiring them to pursue a political career, and bringing them to the forefront for the electorate to choose from.

Election DAY Check-in

I’m writing on the morning of election day, November 5, 2024. I have cast my personal vote, in-person since my cracker-ass state will take days to count mail-in ballots and that will allow people who want to cast doubt on the results as they “change” to do so. No results are available yet, so I might as well do one last wrap up of the numbers.

STATE2020 RESULTSilver Bulletin (October 1)Silver Bulletin (November 5)538 (November 5)RCP (November 5)
ArizonaBiden +0.4%Trump +1.5%Trump +2.4%Trump +2.1%Trump +2.8%
GeorgiaBiden +0.3%Trump +1.0Trump +1.0%Trump +0.8%Trump +1.3%
WisconsinBiden +0.6%Harris +1.9%Harris +1.0%Harris +1.0%Harris +0.4%
North CarolinaTrump +1.3%Trump +0.5%Trump +1.1%Trump +0.9%Trump +1.2%
PennsylvaniaBiden +1.2%Harris +1.2%Trump +0.1%Harris +0.2%Trump +0.4%
MichiganBiden +2.8%Harris +2.1%Harris +1.2%Harris +1.0%Harris +0.5%
NevadaBiden +2.4%Harris +1.8%Trump +0.6%Trump +0.3%Trump +0.6%

If we take the Nate Silver numbers as an accurate prediction of the vote, Trump will win the electoral college 287-251. Of course, just flip Pennsylvania to the Harris column and she wins 270-268. If the polling results end up being systematically biased by 1% in either direction, which would be statistically completely unsurprising, it could be a landslide either way. Still, I think I would rather be Trump this morning, because a 1% bias in his direction delivers a huge landslide, whereas a 1% bias in Harris’ direction puts her right on the edge of maybe winning Georgia and Nevada (which Biden won) and North Carolina (which Biden lost). Arizona, which Biden won, would be an even heavier lift. So in other words, these poll numbers suggest she is underperforming 2020 Biden, and that was a close call. It pains me to say all this. And I don’t think it is necessary to even say this: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A STUPID UNDEMOCRATIC RELIC DESIGNED TO GET 18TH CENTURY SLAVE OWNERS TO AGREE TO BE PART OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE ARE STILL STUCK WITH IT.

Finally, looking at the betting sites (at 8:50 am EST), PolyMarket is 62% to 38% in favor of Trump, PredictIt is 55 cents to 51 cents, and Kalshi is 60% to 40% in favor of Trump. So whoever bets on these sites seems to agree with the polls more or less. Of course, they are looking at the same polls and other betting sites as everyone else when they decide how to bet, so these are not really independent data points. There may also be shady people manipulating these odds similar to how they are able to manipulate sports odds, who knows.

So I think Harris has a very good chance but I am certainly not confident she will win. We may start to get a sense 12 hours or so from now, or we may not really know for a week or even more.

Do I even need to make my case against Trump again? Well, I will, one last time. These are the really, really bad potential consequences of four more years of Trump.

  1. Climate change has gone from a serious risk that could have been avoided or mitigated to an actively unfolding disaster that needs to be managed to produce the least bad outcome still possible. It is coming for our homes, our cities, and our food supply, and it is going to fuel massive movements of people that are going to cause major social instability. The world can’t afford four more years of denial, propaganda, inaction, and backsliding.
  2. Trump will put incompetent clowns in charge of all major federal departments and programs. Incompetent clowns will not be able to deal with crises and emergencies effectively. The risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear war, and nuclear terrorism has gone way up over the past decade. This is a huge, imminent existential threat that could bring our country and entire human civilization to its knees. Another major pandemic with a much higher mortality rate among young people, whether bird flu, a Covid relative, or a biological weapon, is another existential threat clowns will not deal with effectively (as they did not last time). Even a major earthquake affecting major population centers, dealt with incompetently or not at all, could deal a body blow to our country.

My list does not include important issues like inequality, health care, child care, education, abortion, gun control, campaign finance reform, or constitutional reform because we can get away with bickering over these things for four more years without the risk of major systemic collapse of our nation and civilization. And neither of the political parties we are allowed to choose from are going to address these issues effectively, although Democrats will attempt some marginal adjustments from time to time. They just make us a little bit poorer and more miserable gradually over time. Hopefully the robot takeover is at least a decade away. What we can’t afford is not having mature, rational grownups running things at a time of growing existential risk.

should Trump be “running away with the election”?

I am writing this on Halloween, October 31, 2024. You may be reading this after the 2024 U.S. election, in which case you know what happened and I don’t!

Parts of this op-ed in Project Syndicate by a political science professor surprised me.

Others grew alienated during the grueling experience of the Trump presidency. For some Republicans (and independents), the last straw was his loyalty to himself over his party and country when it came to endorsing candidates and dealing with foreign allies and adversaries. For others, it was his pandering to evangelicals, his embrace of isolationism, and his indulgence of racist white nationalists. For still others, it was his attempt to steal the 2020 election, culminating in the uniquely shameful attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Most Democrats and many independents, of course, have resisted Trump from the start.

Thus, the reason Trump isn’t running away with the 2024 election is Trump himself. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Republicans would be the favorites in a normal year with a normal candidate. But 2024 is not a normal year, because Trump is not a normal candidate.

The American electorate’s decision is being influenced both by the quotidian concerns that usually structure election outcomes and by one outsize personality. Never has the latter been such a key consideration. Hundreds of thousands of voters – perhaps millions – are putting aside their party loyalty, policy priorities, and complaints about current conditions to stand against a candidate they consider unfit for the presidency and unworthy of election. We will soon know whether politics as usual or unusual politics will carry the day.

I am surprised by the idea that a “more normal” Republican would be running away with the election. I think it is more likely that an “average Republican” would be hard to distinguish from Kamala Harris who, other than a mildly interesting personal history consisting of being a mixed-race childless cat lady, is a very “average Democrat”.

The Democrats delivered Social Security almost a century ago and Medicare more than half a century ago. These programs are hugely beneficial to voters. However, they have been around for so long that voters take them for granted and do not connect them to the Democratic Party. Since enactment of these programs, Democrats have made many promises to middle class voters and almost entirely failed to deliver on them. (Obamacare might be the biggest success from this period – it was certainly the absolute most that was politically possible at that moment, and much better than nothing, but also much less than fully satisfying. My family would have to pay about $2500 a month out of pocket for coverage, just for the privilege of then paying more when we go to the doctor. This is not affordable or acceptable to the people who need the program most, which are middle income people in the gap between corporate employer-provided coverage and piss-poor quality but free Medicaid for low income people.) So from the Democrats we get positive messages coupled with utter failure to deliver. The Republicans promise nothing and deliver nothing to the middle class. The Democrats’ failure to deliver allows Republicans to focus entirely on negative messaging around things like taxes and immigration, which connects the middle class with people and policies to blame for our misery. The connections are logically and empirically almost entirely false, but the misery is very real. So the election ends up being a referendum against a bland average administration people connect with that misery. My guess would be Trump’s personality turns people on and off in about equal measure, so I suspect substituting a bland average Republican for him (see 2020 Joe Biden) would still result in a near-tossup election.

Don’t get me wrong. My fingers are crossed for Kamala Harris and a Democratic majority in Congress. Another Democratic administration will not deliver for the middle class, but it is much more likely to inch us in the right direction on climate change and manage risk created by the various international crises. These are existential risks, and re-electing Trump just fans the flames of some very, very bad possibilities that could bring down our nation or even our global civilization. To deliver for the middle class, we would need to modernize our constitution, end the control of government policy by wealthy and powerful corporations and billionaires, and get rid of the current insurmountable barriers for candidates outside of the two dominant parties.