Category Archives: Web Article Review

toilet rats, and a Singaporean perspective on Asia at the end of 2025

Leave a reply

The two things in my title are only loosely related, and here’s how. The Guardian has a gleeful article about toilet rats in the (US) state of Washington. Indeed, this does seem like a pretty good indicator of US decline. Nonetheless, I have one personal experience with a toilet rat, and it was in Singapore. Older-style public restrooms (confusingly for American tourists, called “toilets” as they are throughout most of the world) sometimes have squat toilets flush with the floor rather than western toilets that you sit on. This is a traditional Asian style of toilet, only the modern squat toilet is collected to a modern sewer system rather than just a hole in the ground. Anyway, I was in the restroom/bathroom/toilet when a rat came out of a little hole in the floor, either not noticing or not caring that I was there. I stamped my foot just to let the rat know that I was by far the larger and dominant mammal in the room, and the rat reacted by diving directly into the toilet and down the drain. And it was gone. So I assume it just swam for a bit until it got somewhere with air, and returned to whatever it was doing after I left. Anyway, the advice in Washington State is if you see a rat in your toilet you are supposed to flush the toilet or close the toilet lid. I would not do either of these things because rats are FAST, they are afraid of people, and they have sharp teeth. I think I would calmly close the bathroom door and just peak in after an hour or two to see if it chose to go back where it came from. And I might keep the toilet lid closed after that.

I have been in actual sewers in the United States, and I have seen rats. Sewer rats are plentiful. They don’t want anything to do with us humans, they just scurry away if they see us coming. I have never seen or heard of one coming into a person’s house through the plumbing. So the article seems a bit alarmist to me. Mice are another story. I just wiped some suspected mouse poop off my kitchen counter this morning, which is gross and a disease risk. Anyway…

The connection between Singapore and rats is that Singapore, which has a reputation as possibly the world’s most sparkling clean very dense city, is not perfect. There is trash and there are rats, like any other city. Singapore, and its experts, have a certain self-endowed swagger. Now Singapore really is pretty clean, and its experts really are pretty smart, which brings me to my point that Singapore is pretty good but not perfect. So anyway, here is what a Singaporean expert, George Yeo, with a lot of credentials says is going on in Asia at the end of 2025. It is one person’s opinion but also a uniquely Asian perspective and different from what we hear from the US government/media/nonprofit “blob”. The article is from Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post by way of Yahoo, so also keep in mind the possibility of censorship and/or self-censorship (as you also certainly should with the US blob).

  • If it ever becomes clear that the US will not continue to support Taiwan, China will take over Taiwan. Taiwan will not fight a war it will obviously lose leading to its own destruction and loss of a generation of its young people. Right now the US and China are sort of avoiding talking about this and trying to actively suppress others (like politicians in Taiwan and Japan) from talking about it, and this is essentially a continuation of the long-term status quo.
  • When we hear about large weapons sales from the US to Taiwan, there is an unspoken arrangement that these weapons are considered defensive and do not cross a certain line. The US is seen to be supporting Taiwan, China is seen to be outraged, and both sides get their propaganda win without serious escalation. Again, it’s the long-term status quo.
  • Another reason weapons will not cross a certain line is that the US will not provide weapons where it has a technological lead. “Knowing that many Taiwanese are blue, the US cannot be sure that advanced technology supplied to Taiwan will not quickly leak into China. The military technology supplied to Taiwan is technology the US can afford to lose to China.” [Wikipedia: “The Pan-Blue Coalition, Pan-Blue force, or Pan-Blue group is a political coalition in the Republic of China (Taiwan) consisting of the Kuomintang (KMT), the People First Party (PFP), the New Party (CNP), the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU), and the Young China Party (YCP). The name comes from the party color of the Kuomintang. Regarding the political status of Taiwan, the coalition primarily maintains that the Republic of China instead of the People’s Republic of China is the legitimate government of China. It also favors a Chinese and Taiwanese dual identity over an exclusive Taiwanese identity and backs greater friendly exchange with mainland China, as opposed to the Pan-Green Coalition which opposes Chinese identity in Taiwan.” This also, if I am not mistaken, is the status quo position going back many decades.]
  • “There is growing realisation that the road to independence is a dead end…If the young people of Taiwan build their hopes on an illusion – as the young people in Hong Kong once did – it will only lead to tragedy…Taiwan can enjoy more autonomy by negotiating now rather than waiting another 10 years.”
  • Taiwan has economic and industrial strengths that China would like to maintain and benefit from after a hypothetical reunification [which to me, would seem to discourage any full-out military onslaught on a major urban and industrial city]. This is similar to the situation with Hong Kong, where there is some degree of autonomy and the situation is short of full integration [but in my words – obviously much more limited in terms of political freedom than it was in the past].
  • “How can they ever forget that it was Japan’s aggression which separated Taiwan from the mainland in the first place?” [Interestingly, Taiwanese I know tend to have relatively warm feelings towards Japan. I had to refresh on the history again thanks to Wikipedia – Taiwan was occupied/colonized/ruled by Japan from 1895 to 1945. So it was not invaded and dominated in the 1930s and 40s like much of the rest of China and Southeast Asia, and people there were not mistreated as badly.]
  • On “rare earths” we may hear about the US and its allies developing other sources of rare earths, but there are certain “heavy rare earths” which only China produces, and which are critical to industries around the world. Yeo says China could have played this card at any time in the past, and did so only reluctantly as a bargaining chip in response to the recent round of trade disruptions initiated by the Orange Baboon-Ass God [my words, although he does go into a tangent about the Monkey King which is a Chinese/Buddhist legendary epic. Maybe this is actually a very subtle swipe at his dipshit highness.] Yeo sees this situation as a form of mutually assured destruction where it would be irrational for either side to escalate further.
  • The reality of the US government debt is that if there is a severe contraction or reduction in the growth rate, it would at some point have to print money to service its debt. Central banks around the world are buying gold and diversifying away from the US dollar because of this risk.
  • “He [His Orange-Ass Highness] recognises that the US cannot dominate the world the way it used to in the past. The US hasn’t got the financial power or the manufacturing capability. So it has to retreat some and consolidate around its own core and concentrate on healing itself.” The US knows it is overextended globally, and this is what the bluster over exerting itself in the Western Hemisphere is about. It won’t be able to continue exerting itself globally by sheer power and force, so it is retreating particularly from Asia while still trying to look tough. [Maybe, but aren’t there still the 800+ military bases around the world? And why would we antagonize allies if we are in a position of weakness? I am just saying this is irrational, but I admit that ideology can Trump rationality.]
  • He doesn’t see disputes between China and Vietnam or China and the Philippines in the South China Sea “boiling over”.

construction productivity

Leave a reply

Construction Physics has a deep dive on construction productivity around the world. We hear about the overall slowdown in productivity growth worldwide since the 1970s or so, but in the construction industry the trend is essentially stagnation even compared to other industries. The U.S. is a historical leader in absolute productivity but has actually managed a productivity decline compared to modest growth in most other countries studied. That said, there are no countries where the growth is particularly spectacular. Developing countries have managed to grow productivity faster, but that is essentially catching up. It talks a lot about the challenges of measuring productivity, suggesting that just focusing on cost might be the better way to go.

This article doesn’t go deep into potential solutions. Prefabrication of components in factories is talked about a lot, because manufacturing productivity gains have been much more dramatic than construction, which on its face is manufacturing in a much less controlled environment. But prefabrication and modularity have been worked on for a long time and delivered only modest gains. More competition and less corruption in procurement are certainly good things, but these too seem to deliver only modest improvement. Many developed countries in Asia and the Middle East use labor from developing countries, and this seems to work for them but doesn’t deliver large gains I suppose because the lower-wage workers are less skilled and less productive. Streamlining permitting and regulation is always talked about, and tends to fit certain political agendas, but there don’t seem to be enormous gains there. So governments and project teams seem to just pursue an all-of-the-above salad approach and the result is incremental gains or no gains at all. I’ve probably said this multiple times, but I think AI should be very good at construction scheduling. Add in real time inspection and comparison to the original plans using cameras and drones, and it should be possible to really reduce down time and waste in construction. I think there might be substantial potential gains on the horizon here. If I were in government, I might focus R&D funding, targeted procurement, and regulatory/financial incentives on this particular aspect.

Another thought though, is that low construction productivity is not a reason not to do construction. Both housing and infrastructure construction have long-lasting economic and quality of life benefits that go beyond just the immediate economic activity they generate in the construction sector itself. So maybe we should just pony up what they cost now, keep plugging away to try to make the modest gains, and stop worry so much about this.

what’s new with fusion?

Leave a reply

One thing that’s new, according to the New York Times, is massive investment in R&D by the government of China. Meanwhile in the U.S., it’s more about startups and public-private partnerships. In at least one anecdotal case mentioned in the article, top scientists from China who have been based at top U.S. universities for decades are choosing to go home. The article suggests that American firms are often the first to achieve breakthroughs, but the Chinese system is better at scaling and commercializing them.

It seems like there is an opportunity to cooperate for the greater good here, no? That is not the way the political winds are blowing at the moment, of course. At least in this case, if our countries aren’t actually cooperating, they are not competing to weaponize the technology first. This technology was weaponized more than half a century ago, of course, and the quest ever since has been to learn how to control it for peaceful purposes. Of course, the joke is always that commercial fusion is two decades away, no matter what decade we are currently in. This article declines to give a clear time table for widespread commercialization, but it talks about a “pilot plant in the 2030s and 2040s”, so yep the rolling two decade projection seems to be holding.

AI investment compared to railway boom

Leave a reply

The blog Urbanomics has a comparison of the current AI investment concentration to the 19th century railroad investment boom in England and the United States. In this particular case, the blogger neglected to provide the original source, which he or she normally does. Financial Times and Economist are typical sources. Anyway, here are some stats mentioned:

  • Peak “railway mania” in the UK was around the 1840s, and railroad investment accounted for around half of all investment at that time.
  • Between about 1830 and 1870 in the UK, railroad investment accounted for about 20% of all investment.
  • In the US, episodic railroad investment booms occurred in the 1840s and 1870s. Railroad investment at these times was around 40% of all investment. This accounted for GDP growth of about 6-10%.
  • The brief clip actually doesn’t tell us how much of total US investment in 2025 is directed to AI. But it accounts for GDP growth of around 2%.

These are interesting numbers, but I don’t think comparing 19th century and 21st century US GDP growth is a very good comparison. That is essentially comparing a fast-growing developing country to a slow-growing advanced economy. If I had to pick one or the other to live in, I would probably go with the one that has safe drinking water, antibiotics, vaccinations, relatively painless dentistry, and air conditioning.

Prospera, Trump, Thiel and the Honduras drug trafficking pardon

Leave a reply

The former president of Honduras, Juan Hernandez, who was convicted of drug trafficking and then pardoned by Trump, has ties to Peter Thiel and the “charter city” Prospera. I keep tabs on Prospera, as I was initially interested in the charter city idea after hearing a lecture by Paul Romer (a Nobel prize winning economist). The original concept, which was about economic opportunity, efficiency, and clarity of mission, has morphed into something far more corrupt and ugly.

This governing arrangement was organized in part by Hernández, who served two terms as president of Honduras from 2014 until January 2022. Prospera was permitted to launch the charter city after Hernández allowed for the creation of semiautonomous Zones for Employment and Economic Development, or ZEDEs. The ZEDEs were then overseen by a committee that included three of Hernández’s underlings and several American libertarian activists.

So there you have it. I am not saying this is proof that Prospera is the reason for the pardon. But what we see in the press is a lot of puzzlement that the U.S. government can be simultaneously fighting an anti-drug war on the Venezuelan government and supporting a pro-drug former Honduran government. This is logically inconsistent. On the other hand, simultaneously supporting right-wing big business interests in Venezuela (think oil contracts if not outright ownership for US corporations) and right-wing big business interests in Honduras is logically consistent (not to mention corrupt and cynical).

what’s new in the JFK files?

Leave a reply

What’s new is evidence that James Angleton at the CIA was personally tracking Oswald, and (separately, really), extensive ties between Angleton and the nuclear proliferation project of Israeli intelligence. The historical backdrop at this time, also based on evidence, is that JFK was actively and vocally resisting said nuclear proliferation. None of which seems to be a smoking gun with fresh fingerprints, just another party with motive and opportunity.

Though Angleton insisted that the agency was inattentive to Oswald and unaware of the purpose of his activities leading up to Dallas, it has since been disclosed through unclassified JFK assassination records that Angleton personally maintained a classified 201 intelligence/surveillance file on Oswald for the four years preceding Kennedy’s assassination, strictly controlling which officials inside the CIA were permitted to see it through compartmentalization.

Angleton committed perjury before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, claiming he knew almost nothing about Lee Harvey Oswald before the shooting. In another, Angleton concealed the fact that Oswald had visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico City—a visit the CIA publicly claimed it only discovered after the assassination. As Jefferson Morley, author of The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton, explained, the  counter-intelligence chief “preferred to wait out the Warren Commission rather than explain the CIA’s knowledge of and interest in Oswald’s visit to the Cuban consulate” in Mexico…

At the very moment a U.S. president was seeking to restrict Israel’s nuclear ambitions and limit the political power of its lobby in Washington, the CIA official in control of the Oswald file was secretly sharing intelligence channels, assassination communications, and off-the-books operatives with Israel—and lying to both Congress and potentially some of his own CIA colleagues about it. The government spent 60 years redacting those facts and Americans have a right to know why.

I might ask how many agents (come on, yes, Oswald was a CIA agent/informant/collaborator of some sort) Angleton had files on. Hundreds? Thousands? or just a few? Did having a file folder with your name on it really make you special?

what to do after those holiday meals

Leave a reply

I don’t put too much stock in online nutrition and fitness advice, but here is what at least one article (Fashion Beans) suggests in the day or two after overindulgence.

  • Day 1: Start by drinking a whole bunch of water to start flushing salt from the system. Delay caffeine intake for an hour or two (ha, no chance I would ever do this, I have my priorities.) Basically just eat protein, vegetables, and a little bit of vegetable-based fat the rest of the day (hopefully there are some of these amongst the leftovers.) Take a 10-minute walk after every meal (probably never a bad idea). Exercise, but only lightly (as defined by the fitness bro who probably wrote this post.) Give alcohol a break. Get a solid sleep (they say 7.5 hours, sounds a bit overprecise to me).
  • Day 2: Lots of yogurt and fruit and more protein for breakfast.

And that’s it. Sounds totally fine for general health advice. We know what we are supposed to do right? Sleep, exercise, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, whole grains, protein, approved fats and oils in moderation. 0-1 alcoholic beverages per day and avoid sugar and processed foods almost entirely. Do this for a couple days and you will probably feel decent whether you behaved badly on day 0 or not, I would think. Behave badly for several days in a row, as at least I tend to do over holiday breaks and on vacation, and you might start to feel pretty crappy. So here’s the best piece of advice I can give: Do as I say, not as I do!

what’s next for (incremental improvement of commercial) AI

Leave a reply

We normals are hearing in the media that the large language model approach to AI has run its course, that further scaling it up is prohibitive in terms of energy, and that there is an AI-hype-driven financial bubble ready to pop any moment. According to at least one blogger though, the big breakthrough happening right now is having these models “reason” internally before they give an answer.

Two of those leading engineers are: Julian Schrittwieser who helped teach AlphaGo how to play Go at a level never witnessed in human history and is now a lead researcher at Anthropic. And Łukasz Kaiser, who whilst at Google Brain, co‑authored the paper that launched the architecture now driving every major released model on “Attention is all you need”…

Kaiser, for his part, corrects time horizons. The category of work that still belongs unquestioned to humans is shrinking. He states, with a deep belief, that these AI systems will be able to do any labor task currently performed on a computer within a timeframe of five years! …

The question is not whether machines will pass some imagined threshold in the future, but what it means that they have already crossed thresholds we still debate as hypothetical. A society reacts to what it believes is true, not to what is true. When the prevailing public understanding is delayed by years, institutions are, by definition, operating in a prior decade.

We can model technological progress as a series of sequential, overlaid S-curves that have to overlap in just such a way to produce continuous exponential growth. At least some insiders are still thinking in terms of keeping this S-curve going, in a competition between companies and countries. And when we see a new technology break through into widespread public, commercial use, it has already been going in the lab for awhile. That used to be measured in decades, now it is months if these optimist insider voices are to be believed.

https://onepercentrule.substack.com/p/is-ai-on-a-new-trajectory

ASCE 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

The American Society of Civil Engineers (of which I am a member) has released their every-four-years assessment of U.S. infrastructure. Why every four years? Once per presidential cycle I assume, and maybe they aim for about a year after the election to avoid being overly political? Because the goal here is to influence policy and keep the taps flowing with money for infrastructure projects that engineers will work on. It’s a lobbying group and it’s a big business, but nonetheless they try to be objective and infrastructure investment is needed.

The “letter grades” thing is kind of a gimmick, but an effective one I think for getting headlines and communicating with the media and the political class. Then there is more detailed information that interested people, or hopefully people who might be drafting future legislation, can dig into. What is most interesting to me personally is the references.

Anyway, to summarize, the Biden infrastructure spending is slowly working its way through the system and this has resulted in some improvement. I think this is Biden’s true positive legacy, whether he eventually gets any credit for it or not. But the report comes across as pleading for the country to sustain the slightly increased momentum created by the Biden-era funding bill. In my ideal world, infrastructure wouldn’t be funded by One Big Bill once a generation, but continuously as it is needed. And the way for the federal and state governments to do it, I have always thought, would be in a counter-cyclical manner during recessions. Planning should be regional in nature, with local projects that are consistent with long-term planning goals ready to go as funding becomes available. Some funding should be local, because the local community needs skin in the game. Federal and state governments could then match this local investment at a higher or lower level depending on what is happening in the economy. And there needs to be money for the full life cycle including maintenance/repair/upgrade/replacement, not just for new construction. And that is my personal broken-record infrastructure rant from this one civil engineer, thank you for listening.

environmental economics, behavioral economics, and [E]cological [E]conomics

The journal Ecological Economics has as long article on the history of…ecological economics, which it invented. I started through the article a bit skeptical, and became absorbed. They are now trying to figure out how behavioral economics fits in. There is a ton of interesting stuff here, and I am not sure I can even begin to summarize it.

The basic tenet in Ecological Economics (EE) is eloquently stated in the seminal paper by (Røpke, 2004, p. 296): “the human economy is embedded in nature, and economic processes are also always natural processes”. The field gained formal recognition with the founding of the International Society for Ecological Economics in 1988, followed by the launch of the journal Ecological Economics in 1989 and the first international conference in 1990 (Røpke, 2004). It emerged after several unsuccessful attempts to make environmental economics more grounded in physical reality and less constrained by its rigid methodological assumptions. In response to this rigidity, the scholars who founded the EE society and journal opted for openness: any opinion or method could in principle be considered, debated and possibly dismissed only ex post. This stance reflects EE’s commitment to methodological pluralism (Norgaard, 1989), rooted in the belief that no single approach can adequately capture the full complexity of socio-ecological challenges.

That’s the beginning. It goes on like that for a long time. Note that “environmental economics”, which essentially extends the logic of traditional economics to properly deal with external costs and benefits, is not good enough according to the founders of ecological economics. Essentially, we need to acknowledge that the human economy is embedded in the natural world, not the other way around. Behavioral economics extends traditional economics to account for how real individuals (humans, firms) reach conclusions and make decisions, which falls short of pure rationality. The ecological economics crowd says this focus on individual decisions was the breakthrough that allowed behavioral economics to break through into the field of traditional economics. But this is also not good enough because our decisions and actions as a society are more than just the sum of decisions and actions by all the individual actors. That’s my take-home summary, but the article puts it much better backed by evidence and academic studies. Worth a read.