My Dear Watson

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Watson was, in fact, a medical doctor. IBM’s Watson is not a doctor, but tried to play one in real life, and apparently failed. The idea was to use machine learning to crunch huge amounts of medical records and treatment data, and provide recommendations to real doctors treating real patients. And according to this article in Slate, it just didn’t work and the division is being “sold for parts”. I assume this means part of the IBM company legal entity and/or its “intellectual property” being sold, not the actual computer hardware which must be obsolete by now?

Along with the recent Zillow house flipping failure, this seems like another high profile failure for machine learning/AI-based business plans. It might be that the business plans are ahead of the technology, or the technology is ahead of the data (one gets tired of the phrase “garbage in, garbage out”, but it is a real thing – a lot of what is in my medical records is garbage, anyway), or both.

January 2022 in Review

Most frightening and/or depressing story: A collapse of the Game of Thrones ice wall holding back the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica could raise average sea levels around the world by one foot, or maybe 10 feet “if it draw the surrounding glaciers with it”. The good news is that no army of zombies would pour out.

Most hopeful story: LED lighting has gotten so efficient that it is a tossup on energy efficiency with daylight coming through a window, because no window is perfectly sealed. Windows still certainly have the psychological advantage.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: “Big history” is an Australian program that attempts to unify everything from the Big Bang through our current era of intelligent life.

more numbers on Philadelphia shootings

A report commissioned by the Philadelphia has some facts and figures on shootings, both fatal (the layman might refer to these as “murders”) and non-fatal. Here are just a few that caught my eye:

  • For every fatal shooting, 3-4 people are shot non-fatally
  • Arguments are cited as the cause of 50% of shootings, while drug-related issues are cited in 18%. (My thinking on this is slowly evolving, because previously I had assumed the drug economy was at the root of much of the violence. I still wonder if the drug economy factors in some way into many of the arguments if you trace them back far enough, and maybe arguments just take on a life of their own at some point.)
  • 37% of fatal shootings from 2020 have been cleared as of January 2022, where “cleared” generally means an arrest has been made. I wondered how many cases might still be open from 2020 that might still be cleared, but the report says that when an arrest is going to be made, 75% of the time it will be made within about three months.
  • Conviction rates in fatal shooting cases ranged from 96% in 2016 to 80% in 2020.

The book Ghettoside referred to a 40% clearance rate in Los Angeles during the height of the 1990s murder surge there. It is remarkable how similar the 37% number above is. Doing the math, the chances of a murderer being caught and convicted is something like 1 in 3. Again, in a surprising echo of what that book discussed, the recommendations of this report mostly talk about crime prevention and suppression strategies. They specifically talk about dedicating more resources to investigation of non-fatal shootings, but they do not recommend increasing the number of homicide detectives or improving their training.

fairy tales

The Spectator has a review of a new book on the origin of fairy tales. I tended to think “fairies” were Celtic in origin, but this article talks about Middle East, French, and Nordic origins among others. And some were just invented by Hans Christian Andersen, who apparently stayed in Charles Dickens’s house at some point and severely outstayed his welcome.

U.S. labor market growth

Axios has a brief piece on the demographics of the labor force in the U.S. A tight labor market is not just a short-term phenomenon during the pandemic recovery.

In the 2010s, the massive millennial generation was entering the workforce, the massive baby bo0m generation was still hard at work, and there was a multi-year hangover from the deep recession caused by the global financial crisis. But now, boomers are retiring, millennials are approaching middle age, and the Gen Z that follows them is comparatively small.

Axios

So combine this trend with anti-immigrant politics, and we may have a problem. It could lead to the double-edged sword of higher wages and inflation, a trend toward toward greater automation and technological innovation, a general drag on economic growth (which could ultimately lead to deflation), left wing politics, right wing politics, business pressure for more globalization/offshoring, or some combination of any of these (other than inflation and deflation, but maybe it is possible to have a sudden reversal between these and hard for policy to react quickly even if we knew what to do). It is hard to know what to do, but rational immigration policies based on skills and education to fill jobs available would be a start.

supply, demand, and prices do not really exist

This statement by James Galbraith makes my head spin a bit.

Just as Einstein had erased Euclid’s axiom of parallels, Keynes’s General Theory had long since obliterated the supply curves for labor and saving, thereby eliminating the supposed markets for labor and capital.

It followed that the prices of production were set by costs (mostly labor costs and interest rates), while quantities were determined by effective demand. Markets were not treated as if they were magical. It was obvious that most resources and components did not move under the influence of an invisible hand. Rather, they moved according to contracts between companies on terms set by negotiation, as had been the case for more than a hundred years. Technology was managed by organizations – mostly by large corporations – in what was sometimes called “the new industrial state.”

Project Syndicate

This is in a review of a book arguing that prices are really important. It’s a bit disturbing to me to think that there might not be a consensus among economists about how the economy actually works. We ordinary people can grasp theories like prices equilibrating supply and demand, and even how interest rates are related to the money supply and inflation, if we try really hard. But we assume the experts understand this stuff on a much deeper level, and that it is fundamentally science. If our understanding of civilization turns out to be based on pseudoscience, we might be in trouble.

Ghettoside

I’m reading Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America, a book about homicide in Los Angeles between the late 1980s and early 2000s. The word “ghetto”, by the way, might seem loaded but it is how residents and police referred to the neighborhood that is the focus of the book. It’s a very interesting and also disturbing book. It tells a little bit different story than what I have been reading in books and the media elsewhere. In the view of this book, a central factor in high homicide rates, at least in Los Angeles at the time covered in the book, is that police departments don’t solve murders of black men and boys at the same high rates that they solve murders of other groups. This leads to a situation of lawlessness where a sort of “law of the street” develops. In this view, people would actually like more help from the authorities if they felt it was fair and professional, but they don’t believe they can get it so they take matters into their own hands.

The book talks about disputes and arguments among men and boys getting out of hand and leading to cycles of revenge and retaliation. Homicide detectives do their best, but even the best homicide detectives have limited capacity, and training new ones is difficult. When there is a spike in homicides, the supply of good homicide detectives does not increase in kind. Cases get rushed and a smaller fraction of the total get solved. People correctly learn that they are likely to get away with murder, and that contributes to the feedback loop. In Los Angeles at the time, the situation escalated to the point that total strangers were murdering each other simply for being in the wrong neighborhood or wearing the wrong color clothing.

The book argues that Los Angeles at the time was diverting resources from investigating and solving homicides to “violence prevention” and “predictive policing” programs, which were politically popular but less effective than simply solving more cases would have been. It also argues that people can feel harassed and overpoliced at the same time they might support more investigation and solving of violent crime cases if they felt it was fair and effective. I hear echoes of this in the media during the current homicide wave we are experiencing in many U.S. cities. Maybe the violence prevention approaches have improved and have more evidence behind them, but we do hear both that homicide is way up and that the clearance rate is down. And we perpetually hear about the idea of a lack of trust and respect between police and residents of primarily black neighborhoods.

It’s interesting that the crimes discussed in the book are almost all gun crimes, but this is not a book that focuses on guns. Nor does it focus on the drug trade. It focuses on the people involved and their motivations on all sides, from victims to perpetrators to police. It mentions a few police shootings of suspects in passing, but this is also not a focus of the book.

LED lighting vs. windows

Treehugger asks if LED lighting is more efficient than daylight. It seems like a dumb question at first because isn’t daylight free? But the problem inside buildings is that windows allow heat to come and go in addition to light, and LEDs have gotten so efficient that it is not an easy question to answer whether bricking up a window and replacing the light with LEDs would be more or less energy efficient. They conclude that windows should be designed with human comfort and happiness in mind.

Is the Pope the king of Italy?

Just kidding, I’m not that ignorant. That headline was just to get your attention. But then again, I don’t think about the political system in Italy often, so you could say I am ignorant of it. The politics of Italy obviously matters to Italians, but does it matter to the rest of us? Well, there was a guy named Mussolini, but that was quite awhile ago… There’s also a guy called the Pope, who’s not part of the Italian government but has some political power and sway on a global scale. As far as the actual modern government, it’s just a typical European parliamentary democracy, we assume? Well, there is no Italian king, but…

On January 24, when Sergio Mattarella’s seven-year term comes to an end, the Italian parliament and its regional representatives will hold a secret ballot to elect the country’s new president and official head of state…

And yet, in his official capacity as the “guarantor” or “guardian” of the constitution, the president holds considerable power: governments are required to obtain the “approval” of the president, who also nominates (“approves”) the prime minister and his cabinet ministers. Moreover, all laws passed by parliament have to be approved by the president, and he or she is also charged with signing off the dissolution of parliament, for example following a government crisis and loss of parliamentary majority. This means the president effectively decides whether elections should be held or not.

Nor does the president’s power stop there: the incumbent also ratifies all international treaties, and serves as commander-in-chief of the army and as the head of the governing body of the judiciary. The president also wields influence through the technocratic structures of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, particularly the all-powerful Accounting Office (Ragioneria Generale dello Stato) and the Bank of Italy.

Unherd.com

So Italy is at least a Republic of sorts if its head of state is elected by its legislature, which is in turn elected by the people. But the actual powers of the president almost sound like…an ayatollah? In practice, the head of government (i.e. prime minister) may not defer to the President, but it sounds like that balance of power could potentially change with time. And if the President has the ability to dissolve parliament and delay elections during an emergency, the conditions for a potential loss of democracy would seem to be there, at least according to this article.