the “military-digital complex”

The first time I heard this term was in this post from Naked Capitalism, but it sounds right. The article focuses on Palantir and an “alliance” between the US government and tech companies (particularly Palantir) and the Israeli government and tech companies. Palantir does indeed seem sinister. The events in Xinjiang were the first time I had heard of the idea of “social credit scores” to track and control large masses of people, and the events in Gaza take this concept to a new level of (I’m just going to say it) abhorrent violence and immorality.

I read a book once, and I can’t remember or find the title, making the point that these systems for ranking and controlling people go back to at least the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions. If you think about it, the religious authorities of the time would have been the only ones (in their society I mean) with access to the technology and skills needed, such as paper, quills, ink, and literacy. Move on to Tsar, Gestapo, Stasi, and J. Edgar Hoover, and similar ends were accomplished with typewriters and file folders. So it was probably inevitable that modern computerized database technology, and now machine learning technology, would take this to a new level.

And these technologies have many peaceful democratic and economic uses, so we would not want to put this genie back in the bottle even if we could. I also think that as cyber- and bio-weapons of mass destruction become increasingly accessible and dispersed in many more hands, this kind of surveillance will become necessary to manage these risks, which are existential. So the only real options here are to have political controls on the misuse of these technology in democratic societies, and to have updated and strengthened international institutions akin to the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons control regimes of the past. At the moment, of course, it seems we are going down a dark path of increasingly sinister domestic surveillance with weakening democratic controls, along with weakening international controls. And I don’t know that governments focused on misusing these technologies to oppress their own citizens are going to be the ones most effective at also using them to manage the existential risks.

The International Atomic Energy Agency does in fact have a new(ish) AI-powered surveillance system called MOSAIC designed by…Palantir.

The Palantir, of course, was a crystal ball that figures in the Lord of the Rings. Created by the wise elves, who sure were somewhat elitist and mildly racist, but had the best interests of us common humans at heart overall. But the Palantir fell into the wrong hands and was misused by the forces of darkness. Only wizards and hobbits can save us now.

revisiting the Hindenburg

I always assumed that everyone on board the Hindenburg when it exploded over new Jersey in 1937 died. But in fact, there were 97 people on board and 35 of them died. That’s a tragedy, but slightly less tragic in terms of loss of life than I thought.

The U.S. military made its own experiments with airships, and many of them went much, much worse than that. The American versions tended to use helium, so they didn’t explode, but they just couldn’t be controlled well in storms. Weather forecasting and communications were much less far along then than we take for granted now, so people trying to fly these things were often taken by surprise and a lot of them crashed with people dying horrifically from falls, impacts and drowning. This long article from a site called The Atavist goes through this disturbing history.

https://itoldya420.getarchive.net/amp/media/ymca-building-akron-ohio-ad735f

Mullets are back!!!

In truly important fashion news, mullets are making a comeback. While looking at mullets is enjoyable, reading (AI generated?) articles about them is even more enjoyable. Even just reading the headlines is enjoyable. Here are a couple from a site called Fashion Beans.

Subtle Mullets That Master the Art of Tactical Hairstyles

Professional Mullets With Elegant Style for the Modern Office

The professional mullet is a refined take on the classic mullet, tailored for the modern man who desires a balance between edgy and elegant. This hairstyle typically features a medium to long length at the back, gradually tapering towards the sides and top for a polished look. The texture is smooth with a slight wave, achieved through careful layering. This style suits those with oval, square, or diamond face shapes and works well with medium to thick hair. Differing from its wilder 80s cousin, this version combines the mullet’s rebellious spirit with a professional finish, making it suitable for both formal and casual occasions. In recent fashion, it stands out as a bold statement while remaining workplace appropriate.

Country Mullet Inspiration for a Fresh Look

now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational…pipe organ

The world’s largest (fully functional) pipe organ is not in a cathedral in Europe, or in fact a church or cathedral anywhere. It’s in an office building in Philadelphia, where I happen to work. It’s shame because it was part of a our Center City Macy’s which closed recently and it is not clear if the organ will need to be moved. Perhaps not if this website is accurate and still up-to-date. Anyway, I always had the impression it had been built specifically for the space it is in and would therefore be difficult to move, but I was wrong about that – it was built for the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair and later moved to the Wanamaker Department Store here. So it could be moved again if it needs to be. With a pipe organ though, the space it is in is part of the instrument in a way, so if you move it that particular sound you got from the combination of the organ and the space will never happen again. It would be like moving your guitar or violin strings to another completely different instrument. Anyway, they still play it daily because apparently it needs to be played to stay in good shape. It rattles the walls throughout the building, which is cool.

I do have one more question – how common are not-fully-functional pipe organs and where are they? Maybe they are hard to maintain in good condition, and therefore for every fully operational one there are a bunch of old broken ones lying around? I don’t know.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wanamakers_Organ_at_Macys_Philadelphia_in_2023.jpg

Forest City

Forest City is a sort of boondoggle new town development in southern Malaysia, just across the border from Singapore. I think the idea was that people and companies would want to live there cheaply and commute or do business in Singapore. It hasn’t lived up to its promise.

Anyway, what caught my eye in this Los Angeles Times article was a tech entrepreneur setting up yet another seminar on the whole charter cities libertarian enclave city-state idea.

They have descended on Forest City to attend Network School, the brainchild of former Coinbase Inc. executive and “The Network State” author Balaji Srinivasan. In this troubled megaproject once envisaged to house some 50 times its current population, they’re conducting a real-life experiment of sorts with Srinivasan’s vision of “startup societies” defined less by historical territory than shared beliefs in technology, cryptocurrency and light regulation…

Nearly 400 students, many of them entrepreneurs, have so far made the journey to Forest City to study everything from coding to unconventional theories on statehood. They’re building crypto projects, fine-tuning their physiques and testing whether a shared ideology — rather than just shared territory — can bind a community. The price starts at $1,500 per month, including lodging and food, for those who opt for a shared room…

“We’re all getting jacked,” said Prad Nukala, a student at the school and founder of crypto startup Sonr, which describes itself as a “blockchain for decentralized identity.”

If there is any doubt, “jacked” here is a reference to weight lifting.

$1500 per month doesn’t sound bad at all for an all-inclusive month-long vacation.

Spain’s “solar power meltdown”?

This article in (paywalled) Financial Times is called “The Story Behind Spain’s Solar Power Meltdown”. But the “meltdown” turns out to be in the price of solar power following an extraordinarily successful implementation effort. So maybe it’s a meltdown for some corporations and their investors who created too much capacity in the short term, but it has resulted in abundant renewable energy, which has to be good for the long term.

The other issue apparently is that Spain and its electrical industry did not invest enough in their electric grid and storage capacity at the same time they invested in all this supply, and that has also caused issues. Recent blackouts have been blamed on solar power, whether that is really fair or not (this article says mostly no).

Spain may be sunnier than many parts of the US, but certainly not the desert southwest. I think the lesson here is that solar supply probably doesn’t need government subsidies any more to take off. It may need a level playing field, in other words dirtier, less efficient fossil fuels not to be unfairly subsidized with our taxpayer money while propaganda convinces us the opposite is happening. But the grid, vehicle charging, and storage infrastructure seems like it still needs government help to get over the hump. That is not where the political winds are blowing at the moment, but political winds eventually shift in the face of overwhelming economic forces. Just check in with the coal industry on that one.

Is the AI bubble bursting?

Apparently trying to answer this question is consuming a lot of bandwidth in the financial, tech, and even geopolitical arenas right now. Here is one answer from Larry Johnson, whose politics and past statements I do not necessarily endorse. Just to very briefly summarize his article: YES.

A few insights of my own:

  • The AI “hype bubble” has almost certainly reached a commanding height, and will pop at some point. This will probably be felt in stock market index valuations, which are dominated by a handful of large tech companies at the moment. In my lifetime now covering half a century, we have seen this cycle first with the personal computer itself and then with the internet. In both cases, the expectation that these technologies would super-charge economic growth in a few years did not happen, and led to financial market declines. Both technologies have in fact transformed the economy drastically, it just took a few decades rather than years. Things do seem to be happening faster this time around, I admit.
  • When it comes to stock market crashes, there is usually some precipitating event like the Asian financial crisis in 1997 or U.S. derivative bubble in 2007. The combination of technology bubble bursting and external financial shock seems to be particularly powerful. In fact, when I look back, I think I can argue the forward progress of the U.S. halted around that 1997 (financial crisis) to 2000 (Bush v. Gore) to 2001 to 2003 (9/11 attacks and Iraq invasion) period, and went into outright decline between the 2007 financial crisis and 2020 Covid crisis.
  • Apparently some in Silicon Valley thought the artificial general intelligence singularity was so near when the LLMs first came out, and that US tech companies were so far ahead of international peers, that it justified huge short-term investments in order to gain a first mover advantage that would then be insurmountable. This particular bubble seems to be popping at the moment, with AGI clearly not here right now, and perhaps a loose, emerging consensus that LLMs are a useful technology but not a likely path to AGI. So companies may have over-invested in infrastructure that will hurt some of them badly in the short term, while possibly benefitting us all in the longer term (think about 19th century railroads for a fairly obvious analogy).

So there is somewhat of a race here – will we start to see significant economic benefits of these new technologies before some external shocker hits us? This is the luck of the draw. It seems luck has not been on our side for the last 25 years or so. Perhaps we’re due.

mayors, governors, and senators

In a random AI experiment (Microsoft’s Copilot in this case), I have generated a list of 2028 US presidential candidates. Here were my criteria:

  • Current or previous mayors of the largest 100 US cities, re-elected at least once. Alive and under 70.
  • Current or previous governors of US states, re-elected at least once. Alive and under 70.
  • Current or previous US Senators, re-elected at least once. Alive and under 70.

No, Donald Trump would never have passed this screen, and nor does J.D. Vance because he has not been re-elected to any office so far. But my reasoning is these are people who showed they have what it takes to win high-stakes elections, then perform well enough in the eyes of voters and donors to get re-elected. Sorry to the 70 and up crowd, but for the Democrats in particular it is just time for the older generation to turn over the reigns.

A few familiar names: One person who is familiar, Barrack Obama, would not be eligible. People who have run before and not done all that well (Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Tim Walz, Nikki Hailey, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, I’m looking squarely at all of you) should step aside and give others a shot. Marco Rubio and Rahm Emanuel are a couple household names that jump out at me from this list. Does anyone on this list actually excite me? Michael Nutter, best ever (and only really good) mayor of Philadelphia, your country needs you!

I also asked Copilot to help me encode the table as HTML, which it was able to do. There are undoubtedly better ways to add tables in WordPress, which maybe I will be smart enough to learn about some day. So without further ado, here is the list sorted from youngest to my mandatory retirement age of 69:

Name City/State Party Years in Office Estimated Age Role
Quinton LucasKansas City, MODemocrat2019–present40Mayor
Kate GallegoPhoenix, AZDemocrat2019–present43Mayor
Jacob FreyMinneapolis, MNDemocrat2018–present43Mayor
Pete ButtigiegSouth Bend, INDemocrat2012–202043Mayor
David HoltOklahoma City, OKRepublican2018–present46Mayor
Todd GloriaSan Diego, CADemocrat2020–present47Mayor
Tim KellerAlbuquerque, NMDemocrat2017–present47Mayor
Andy BeshearKentuckyDemocrat2019–present47Governor
Eric JohnsonDallas, TXRepublican2019–present48Mayor
Tom CottonArkansasRepublican2015–present48Senator
Regina RomeroTucson, AZDemocrat2019–present49Mayor
Andrew GintherColumbus, OHDemocrat2016–present50Mayor
Jared PolisColoradoDemocrat2019–present50Governor
Cory GardnerColoradoRepublican2015–202150Senator
Julian CastroSan Antonio, TXDemocrat2009–201451Mayor
Chris MurphyConnecticutDemocrat2013–present51Senator
Muriel BowserWashington, D.C.Democrat2015–present52Mayor
Kevin StittOklahomaRepublican2019–present52Governor
Brian SchatzHawaiiDemocrat2012–present52Senator
Alex PadillaCaliforniaDemocrat2021–present52Senator
Gretchen WhitmerMichiganDemocrat2019–present53Governor
Nikki HaleySouth CarolinaRepublican2011–201753Governor
Ben SasseNebraskaRepublican2015–202353Senator
Bobby JindalLouisianaRepublican2008–201654Governor
Marco RubioFloridaRepublican2011–present54Senator
Kasim ReedAtlanta, GADemocrat2010–201855Mayor
Cory BookerNewark, NJDemocrat2006–201356Mayor, Senator
Gavin NewsomSan Francisco, CADemocrat2004–201157Mayor, Governor
Scott WalkerWisconsinRepublican2011–201957Governor
Tammy DuckworthIllinoisDemocrat2017–present57Senator
Kelly AyotteNew HampshireRepublican2011–201757Senator
Michael BennetColoradoDemocrat2009–present60Senator
Brian KempGeorgiaRepublican2019–present61Governor
Tim WalzMinnesotaDemocrat2019–present61Governor
Chris CoonsDelawareDemocrat2010–present61Senator
Martin O’MalleyBaltimore, MDDemocrat1999–200762Mayor, Governor
Chris ChristieNew JerseyRepublican2010–201862Governor
Jeff FlakeArizonaRepublican2013–201962Senator
Barack ObamaIllinoisDemocrat2005–200863Senator
Mark BegichAlaskaDemocrat2009–201563Senator
Jane CastorTampa, FLDemocrat2019–present64Mayor
Rahm EmanuelChicago, ILDemocrat2011–201965Mayor
Mitch LandrieuNew Orleans, LADemocrat2010–201865Mayor
Kim ReynoldsIowaRepublican2017–present65Governor
Michelle Lujan GrishamNew MexicoDemocrat2019–present65Governor
Dean HellerNevadaRepublican2011–201965Senator
Mike DugganDetroit, MIIndependent2014–present66Mayor
Phil MurphyNew JerseyDemocrat2018–present67Governor
Andrew CuomoNew YorkDemocrat2011–202167Governor
Joe HogsettIndianapolis, INDemocrat2016–present68Mayor
Michael NutterPhiladelphia, PADemocrat2008–201668Mayor
Deval PatrickMassachusettsDemocrat2007–201568Governor
Terry McAuliffeVirginiaDemocrat2014–201868Governor
Jon TesterMontanaDemocrat2007–present68Senator
Heidi HeitkampNorth DakotaDemocrat2013–201969Senator
Joe DonnellyIndianaDemocrat2013–201969Senator

How weak was Kamala Harris?

Maybe it’s time to stop rehashing the 2024 and 2016 elections, you say, but I keep hearing people say that “America will never elect a woman”. I suspect being female, or black, or Muslim, or any minority, puts a candidate at a small disadvantage that they have to overcome through political talent. In other words, a female and/or minority candidate may need to be a little bit more talented than a white male just to draw even. Barrack Obama comes to mind – he was such a strong and charismatic candidate that his minority status didn’t seem to matter. Reagan and Bill Clinton were other particularly strong, charismatic candidates from my lifetime (seriously, where are the TV-cowboy-turned-governors today?) So the important question going forward is, were Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris just particularly weak candidates to being with?

One way to objectively measure this is to look at whether a candidate underperforms or overperforms other candidates from their party in particular jurisdictions. And on this measure, Kamala Harris was weak according to Nate Silver’s analysis.

One piece of evidence for this is her inferior performance compared to most Democratic Senate candidates. On net, Harris underperformed the Democratic Senate candidate by an average of 2.6 points and a median of 2.4. Yes, this includes three “Democrats” who were actually independents — nontrivially so in the case of Dan Osborn of Nebraska, who hadn’t said which party he’d caucasus with. (The independents are highlighted in green in the table.) Still, in the five swing states to also feature Senate races (highlighted in gold), Harris underperformed the Senate candidate by an average of 3.5 points, and Democrats won 4 out of the 5 contests in states that Harris lost.

So while “messaging” and policy communication certainly matter, the Democrats (and post-Trump Republicans for that matter) need to try to find strong, charismatic candidates. One obvious problem is that this measure is backward looking, requiring past election results to analyze. But that could be an argument for looking at candidates with past election results, like mayors, governors, and senators.

I’m an amateur here, and smart professional political people must be doing this, surely? Well then why have we had such poor leadership choices put before us in this country since approximately 2012 (sorry McCain, Romney, H. Clinton, Trump, Biden, Harris – none of you inspired me). In a country of 350 million people or so, there just has to be more talent out there. Either the incentives or the political gatekeepers or both are preventing them from running.