Category Archives: Web Article Review

napping

I think I’ve talked about napping before. It’s supposed to be good for your heart and brain. But anyway, here is what a (paywalled) Philadelphia Inquirer article says are best practices.

  • 20-30 minutes in length
  • end 4-6 hours before bedtime (this would be 4-6 pm for me)
  • “create the right environment by napping in a quiet, comfortable, and dimly lit space”

The article actually suggests it is okay to use caffeine to fight off grogginess when waking up from an afternoon nap. But I don’t think a cup of coffee late in the afternoon would work for me. I think that is actually a great time for exercise. And we know that is good for our hearts and brains.

generative AI in the workplace?

Microsoft is unleashing generative AI on the workplace imminently, according to Slate.

At Microsoft’s New York release event on Thursday, I watched as it revealed products that simplify and automate some of the worst parts of office life. The company demoed a text generator that can read long Word documents and write blog posts highlighting the most relevant points. It showed another feature that allows you to prompt Copilot to summarize a slew of unread messages from an email-happy co-worker. The technology can also read transcripts of meetings you miss and note the most relevant parts, or allow you to query the full discussions. Even simple updates like prompting Copilot to create a header image for a slide deck seem quite useful.

Slate

So maybe this can partially automate some useless tasks that are taking up our time. But if they are useless, do they need to be done at all? Are they adding value at all to begin with?

Here is some advice I would give young people new to the workplace:

  1. When people give you assignments, repeat them back to confirm you understand them. If they are still not clear, put them in writing and ask the person assigning the task to confirm. In most cases, they will like this.
  2. Keep a running list of things you have been asked to do, when they are due, what their status is, and any problems/obstacles/questions you are encountering to getting them done. Look at and update this list every day.
  3. Give updates on your tasks without being asked. When you have a question, encounter an issue, or realize you may not be able to meet a deadline, talk to the person assigning the work early and often about it. They will like this. Often deadlines can be moved or you can get help, but this gets harder as a deadline approaches.
  4. Keep a calendar. Look at it and update it every day.
  5. Make it a habit to take notes in all meetings and phone conversations. You don’t have to be a court reporter. Try to capture assignments and decisions. At the end of the day and again at the end of the week, look through all your notes, list new assignments, and move them to your assignment list.
  6. Basically, you want to be a rock solid and reliable “set it and forget it” employee. This doesn’t mean you do everything perfectly all the time with no help. It means that when someone assigns you a task, they know you will either do it perfectly and on time, or much more likely, you will come to them with updates and issues that need to be resolved to get the work done. Once they assign it to you, they don’t have to think about it again until you walk through the door.
  7. #1-6 are kind of it for maybe your first year. Once you are a master note taker, list and calendar keeper, at some point you will find yourself helping others to get organized. One day, you will find yourself tracking and communicating the work of a small team of people. Which brings me to communication…
  8. Reading, writing, and speaking are all important, of course. But what is really valuable as you start moving up the business ladder is starting to get a sense of how to communicate a message to an audience. I try to ask myself three questions before preparing a document or presentation: (1) Who specifically is my audience? (2) What is the take home message I would like my audience to hear and understand? and (3) What decisions or actions would I like my audience to take after hearing and understanding my message? Get this down, and at some point you will not just be the back office “getting things done” person (although you can make a perfectly good career of that if you want to), but you will find yourself in front of customers and senior management explaining things and adding value for your organization.
  9. Maybe it doesn’t need to be said, but take some time for humanity. A little small talk and banter is how humans connect, and as long as it doesn’t get out of hand it is positive for productivity. When you work in an office, get in the habit of saying hello when you get there and good-bye before you leave. It is annoying when someone just evaporates at 5 pm and you had an important question for them. If you need to vanish at exactly 5 pm, stick your head in at 4 pm and ask if there is anything critical people need from you during the last hour of the day. This is really helpful. If you don’t need to vanish at 5 pm, stick around for a little while and review the happenings of the day with co-workers. Every once in awhile, move the banter to a local eating or drinking establishment. This is how productive, creative, innovative teams are built and I see this culture vanishing.
  10. Notice I didn’t talk much about working from home. I just don’t think it works well. Try to be there in person as much as possible.

Now, do any of the things “generative AI” can do in the short term address anything above? I’m skeptical but willing to give it a chance. A big reason for all that note taking, list and calendar keeping/reviewing/updating I do is to form a big picture in my brain of what is going on in my organization and how I can add value to it. Even if a computer can form that big picture, that is not going to put it in my brain. Maybe a computer can go through a transcript of a meeting or phone call and pull out decisions and action items. It certainly should be able to keep a calendar and do scheduling. It might be valuable if first thing in the morning the computer would say to me “consider doing this thing next” or “consider doing one these two (or three) things next”, and this would always fit into some bigger picture goal of getting everything done on time, on budget and to a high standard. Maybe virtual reality will solve some of the problems with working from home eventually. I doubt we will be there any time soon, but I also don’t doubt the computers will get better at this over time.

what, exactly, is momentum?

This is a physics topic – maybe not of interest to many, but of interest to me as I happen to be taking (suffering through?) a hydraulics course at the moment. Like energy, we kind of intuitively know what momentum is, but we have a hard time describing it satisfactorily in words. Apparently, there are philosophers of science that spend entire careers examining words used by others (like Isaac Newton) to try to describe it. Once upon a time, a philosopher and a scientist were the same thing, in fact.

Momentum is about force. It is a thing that does not change unless “external forces” are imposed on a system. In fluid mechanics, there is an imaginary thing called a “control volume” which obeys this law. You can do calculations on this, and then you can go into a laboratory where you have a pump and a glass channel (picture a long aquarium) with very low friction, and show that your math matches what happens in the real world. There can be “internal forces” in the fluid which allow energy to change (well, change from energy embodied in pressure – potential energy – and/or velocity – kinetic energy – to heat, which then just drifts off into the air. But the momentum does not change because there are no external forces (ignoring the friction of that slippery, slippery glass.

Momentum is a function of mass and velocity, we learn in high school. Force, we learn in high school, is the product of mass and acceleration, and acceleration is a change in velocity over time. So there – did I explain it to myself? Not quite, but that at least helped me to think it through.

Even if ChatGPT could produce a more coherent version of what I wrote above (which is possible), that would not have helped me think this through and incorporate more of the real world into my mental model of how the real world works. Because thinking and writing go together. So I am not going to give up writing any time soon. Even if nobody read my writing here (and if you did, I apologize), it helped me to write this down. I will skim over this later at some point using some rough version of “spaced repetition”, and that will also help my feeble human brain to incorporate this knowledge into my mental model.

Talking can also sometimes help upgrade our mental models, although most talking is useless. For example, I was discussing momentum with my professor recently in the mens room. So ladies, if you were wondering what men talk about in the mens room, now you know, or at least now you know what two random men were discussing in one random mens room on one random day. And yes, we know you complain about us in the ladies’ room, and that complaining about men is an important part of female bonding that really doesn’t have much to do with us. And this is okay.

RFK Jr.? Michelle Obama?

There’s talk of a viable RFK Jr. candidacy and even a Trump-RFK Jr. ticket. I first became aware of him many years ago when he was talking about mercury poisoning in Rolling Stone. I am concerned about mercury, and lead, and possibly even floride, but his grasp of science turned out to be bogus. Unless you believe there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the fact that we are all being poisoned. I don’t think so. We are being exposed to a vast variety of chemicals in modern industrialized countries and we should do more to understand and control their effects.

I haven’t looked into his Covid vaccine denialism much. If the point is that no vaccine is risk-free, sure, but this vaccine clearly saved tens of millions of lives worldwide. And the technology holds great promise to cure a wide range of diseases including many types of cancer. It also holds perils from (more?) lab leaks to bioterrorism to biological warfare.

Happy topics. The problem with RFK Jr. even if you read things he has written or things written about him and are tempted to nod your head, is…it is impossible to listen to him talk. Seriously – give it a try. It’s just too awkward to even contemplate. He makes W. Bush or even Trump look like a slick public speaker.

Michelle Obama? I don’t know. People might vote for her but (1) she is not a professional politician and (2) she has said a million times she is not interested. She is basically a celebrity with some name recognition.

In a country of 332 million, there have to be some people with (1) charisma, (2) leadership and public speaking ability, and (3) ideas. These three things do not preclude corruption and evil of course, but they are a starting point. Will the real potential leaders please stand up?

propaganda and the media’s Israel-Palestine coverage

This FAIR article lists some propaganda techniques it says the media uses to bias Israel-Palestine coverage. I am not taking a political stand here on the basis of my limited knowledge of these issues, but rather taking note of the propaganda techniques themselves. It is a useful skill in today’s world to be able to spot propaganda. The bold-faced headers are my paraphrasing of what the article presents, while the remaining text is my own analysis.

  1. Disproportionately presenting position statements made by one side or the other, or interviewing individuals representing one side or the other. Corporations and governments are well aware that “press releases” become pre-packaged news for the cash strapped and possibly lazy media to use with minimal effort. So the better organized side with deeper pockets is going to get more coverage. Sure there are journalistic ethics, but economics is the stronger force, so it becomes an arms race where everybody hires “communications” specialists and competes to get their version of a story out. The news coverage then goes to the highest bidder.
  2. Using words that do not assign blame for violence, such as “clash” rather than “assault”. We see examples in the local U.S. media too, where street violence is caused by “criminals” or “gangs” but vehicular homicide, negligent road design, and non-enforcement of traffic safety laws are portrayed as “accidents”.
  3. Excessive use of the passive voice. “People were killed” used more often when talking about violence affecting one side or the other.
  4. Covering deaths on one side much more than the other, or not covering deaths on one side at all. We certainly see this with U.S. coverage of our foreign wars and local violence. I think there is also just a sensationalist aspect to this where unfamiliar acts of violence (a horrific suburban school shooting) are covered disproportionately to all the other acts of violence around us (again, deaths in and around motor vehicles possibly being the most glaring.) I think the media could combat this somewhat by giving more facts and figures on death and violence to give context to the more sensational, anecdotal stories. And a lot of this could be automated pretty easily. For example, if the media is covering the latest incident involving an autonomous vehicle, AI could very easily put national crime, violence, and transportation safety data stats at their fingertips. This is routinely done in the sports world (this is the 18th time such and such a combination of random events has happened on a Thursday in June is 1976…).
  5. “Sidelining international law”. In the case of Israel, there is somewhat of an international consensus that some of the government’s actions are illegal. Palestine is also recognized as a state by quite a few UN member states. We don’t hear much about this in the U.S. media. Again, it is not hard to have facts and figures provided by international non-governmental agencies handy. Although, in the U.S. we have propaganda causing us to discount information coming from the UN.
  6. “Reversing victim and victimizer”. This has to do at least partially with how “protests”, “demonstrations”, “looting”, and “riots” are covered. In the U.S., one example of this was the Hurricane Katrina coverage, although I think the media coverage of the 2020 George Floyd protests was a bit more even-handed. There is a certain element of media and corporate self-licking ice cream cone on this though, where they all stand around in a circle patting each other’s backs while continuing to rig elections for the rich and powerful and not deliver concrete benefits and services to the working people of this country.

human population

This video shows the growth in human population throughout history, complete with maps of where the major cities and empires were.

American Museum of Natural History

I think this would be an interesting way to teach a world history class, with both some multicultural street cred (Romans, Chinese, Indians, Mayans) and some practical geography and quantitative critical thinking skills.

The idea that population is going to shrink is interesting. It just doesn’t make sense that this has to represent doomsday. Just by focusing on per-capital wealth and income as a metric, rather than total national wealth and income, we can try to come up with ways to improve the quality of human lives rather than just increasing total money spent, activity, and environmental impact ceaselessly. What would this mean for “markets”? I’m not sure, but if we can accelerate productivity growth, and spread the gains fairly among the shrinking pool of humans, I don’t see why it has to be so bad.

autonomous vehicle brakes and gently bumps fire truck going through a red light on the wrong side of the street

Every minor autonomous vehicle incident is headline news, while meanwhile we just accept 40,000 Americans (and something like a million human beings worldwide) per year dying in and around cars operated by human drivers. It’s not that we should accept the risk posed by autonomous vehicles, it’s that we should recognize that it something like an order of magnitude lower than the risk of human-operated vehicles, which is huge. Every time the news reports one of these incidents, they should tell us how many people, including children, were killed and gruesomely injured since the last time they reported such an incident. We also need safe street designs and we need to stop pretending vehicles designed to be safer in highway collisions are also safe in urban environments with pedestrians and bicyclists. Something like golf carts traveling 15-20 mph would be a much safer, cheaper, convenient, and less polluting way to get around in the city.

There Be Dragons: my 2022-2023 fantasy journey

Stop reading here if you don’t care about my fantasy (novel reading) journey. I read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings probably as a pre-teen in the late 1980s or so, and loved every minute of them. I was talking to a young person recently who has not read them and does not have any interest in them, and it kind of made me sad. I would not be the same person if I had not read them. Sadly, I don’t think anyone else can ever live up to Tolkien’s legacy, not even authors who put “R.R.” in their names and then don’t finish their books (I liked Ice and Fire as far as it went and I hope it eventually concludes). But anyway, here’s what I’ve read over the past year or so.

The Silmarillion: I finally went back and read this. I supposed it was in the back of my mind from the recent Amazon series (which I thought was decent and hope will continue) and from the mention of it in Ready Player Two. The Silmarillion is long and somewhat hard to read, but it really helped me appreciate the incredible depth of the fantasy world that Tolkien created. Long as it is, I did not appreciate before that the Silmarillion is only a summary of the incredibly deep alternate universe Tolkien created. He must have spent more time in that alternate universe than in this one. An interesting thing about the Silmarillion is the idea of a mischievous creator god who created evil on purpose. Was this for his amusement. He also created humans and elves, and we eventually learn that humans return to be with him after death. Elves do not die from old age or disease, but they die in battle, but they go somewhere but they don’t get to be with the creator god. Dwarves were created by a lower level of gods akin to angels, without the creator god’s permission. Orcs were created by the evil demon-like god in “mockery” of the elves.

Earthsea: I read the five-part Earthsea series by Ursula K. LeGuin. I’ve heard this described as “the other” great fantasy series of the 20th century. Maybe, but not on a par with Tolkien. I liked it.

Land Fit for Heroes: Since I love Altered Carbon, I will read anything by Richard K. Morgan. I enjoyed this, although I found the ending leaving me to piece some things together on my own, in a classic William Gibson move. Well, Morgan is clearly Gibson-inspired.

What to Middle Earth, Ice and Fire, Earthsea, and Land Fit for Heroes all have in common? DRAGONS!!! So I learned that Rule #1 of fantasy writing, should I ever choose to undertake it, is there have to be dragons.

Is “green growth” possible?

Green growth is the holy grail where human wellbeing is able to grow exponentially over the long term without depleting natural resources including the natural environment’s ability to assimilate our wastes. I won’t claim to understand all the words in this abstract, but the author is basically coming up with a big fat NO.

Is green growth possible and even desirable in a spaceship economy?

There seems to be a consensus among many growth and resource economists that perpetual growth can be ensured if it gets increasingly resource-efficient and if growth focuses on creating values, a result derived by models using production functions that allow asymptotically complete decoupling of the economy from its resource base by substituting natural resources through physical and knowledge capital. This growth process can be called green growth. The following paper attempts to show, within the framework of an semi-endogenous growth model using a linear-exponential production function (Linex function) with bounded resource efficiency, that the accumulation of physical and knowledge capital to substitute natural resources cannot guarantee green growth. As the population grows, per capita income decreases, and the economy’s capital base decays. In addition, an ecological displacement effect resulting from the biophysical embeddedness of the economy further exacerbates the result. Physical capital pushes back the natural spaces necessary to regenerate natural services and resources and can, therefore, not be accumulated endlessly. A comparison with standard resource models shows that this displacement effect also limits growth for models with production functions with low elasticities of substitution. Finally, the analysis of transitory dynamics addresses aspects of intergenerational equality in a limited biosphere.

I’ll take a crack at interpreting this. The human economy cannot be fully separate from the natural environment because it will always result in some physical displacement, even if pollution could be eliminated. Well, what if all human enterprise were built on stilts well above the earth? All food would also be grown on these stilts, all materials recovered and cycled endlessly. This would shade out natural ecosystems, but you could use giant space mirrors to beam in sunlight that would otherwise have uselessly bypassed the earth (which is all but a vanishingly tiny fraction of sunlight). Now, you might say why not just go live in orbit? But the advantage of my scheme is that you can just take an elevator down to the earth, and the entire earth is a park for your enjoyment. What about tigers, you say? Well, we will just invite those rolling bubble things from Jurassic Park.

Are markets underestimating climate risk?

This sprawling Naked Capitalism article says yes, basically because investors don’t consider the long term. But if it were really true that most investors are not aware or not correctly valuing the risk, a small minority of investors should in theory be able to make money on that and bring markets back into equilibrium. Maybe the “long term” is just too long for mortal human investors to consider? But corporations and other institutions like pension funds are not mortal humans. Fossil fuel companies could try to exploit these opportunities to hedge their bets while they continue to cast doubt on the science and technology needed to get out of the mess.

How would an investor exploit other investors’ underestimation of climate risk, if this actually exists? Short-sell companies insuring homes, businesses, and lives in coastal and fire-prone areas? Buy construction and engineering companies that will get our tax money to clean up after disasters? Military and security contractors who build walls and detention camps (a morbid thought, but mass migration driven by climate panic seems likely to hit us at some point). Clean energy? Nuclear energy? It’s hard to guess and time these things – basically comes down to luck, and there are always going to be people with deeper pockets and political influence to keep us small-time investors from getting ahead. Diversifying across asset classes and internationally, and not having all our savings tied up in our houses, still seem like the best options for us little people.