Month: September 2017

I saw a bike accident (arrived too late to know if it had been a car-bike accident, but probably). People were already gathered around the cyclist, who seemed to be mostly okay.

What if I’d had to call the police?

With the fragments of cell network coverage that are left to those of us who live among the towerphobic Millionaires Who Hate Trump (formerly the “Millionaires for Obama”), I’m not sure that I would have been able to sustain a voice call to 911. If I had called 911 successfully would the Enhanced 911 system have worked to give the operator my location? If not, it might have been challenging to specify a location in Massachusetts due to the lack of street signs for the bigger streets (i.e., most intersections have street signs for just one of the two streets).

It would have been way easier to get an Uber to my precise location since Uber is typically able to function with poor coverage. And certainly it would have been a lot more likely to get a text message out. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/text-911-quick-facts-faqs says “Today most consumers cannot reach 911 by sending a text message from their wireless phone.”

Given that our local governments have invested vastly more in communications infrastructure than Uber has in software and server hardware, why is it easier to get an Uber than police or fire department assistance?

Full post, including comments

On August 26 I wrote The End Times in Texas: media portrayal versus reality about the contrast between the tone of at least some media stories regarding Hurricane Harvey and what Houston-based friends were saying in email or on Facebook. My post sought to avoid the selection bias of typical media reports by seeking on-the-ground accounts from non-journalists.

Within about 40 hours of that post it became apparent that the scale of damage was close to the worst-case scenarios that had been painted. None of my on-the-scene friends had been prepared for it. Now I’m wondering if the media’s generally hysterical tone is partly responsible for folks discounting the likelihood of the worst-case scenarios.

In the not-so-glorious-as-remembered days of my youth, newspapers didn’t have to work desperately to capture readers and advertisers. More or less every family in a city would subscribe to that city’s principal newspaper. There was a steady stream of subscription and advertising revenue even during “slow news” periods. An editor could run a quiet “human interest” story on the front page if there were nothing sufficiently dramatic happening to justify a big headline.

Today, however, newspapers have to compete for attention with other online diversions, streaming video, video games, etc. So even the most irrelevant information is characterized as having the potential to change readers’ lives, the smallest issues debated in Congress become life-or-death, and the most ineffectual action taken by a president is the next step toward tyranny.

As an example, here’s a front-page expose from the New York Times on the same day, August 26, as my Hurricane Harvey post: “Late Wages for Migrant Workers at a Trump Golf Course in Dubai”:

“Trump is not the owner or developer of Trump International Golf Club Dubai nor does it oversee construction or employ or supervise any of the companies or individuals who have been retained to work on the building of the project,” said a company spokeswoman, Amanda Miller, in an emailed statement.

The Pakistani driver who works at the Trump course arrived three years ago, seeking to support his wife and two boys. He took a job driving a pickup, earning over $800 a month, or more than twice his pay at home. He is supposed to be paid within the first five days of the month. Frequently, a week or more passes without the money arriving.

In other words, after reading about 15 screens of text one learns that the subcontractor of the subcontractor of the Trump partner does eventually pay workers in full. This merited “top of the home page” placement on the same day as stories about one of our largest cities being potentially flooded.

Readers: What do you think? When everything is presented as a crisis do we lose our ability to perceive the true potential crises?

Related:

• What can we do to help Houstonians?

Full post, including comments

Marc Ginsberg, who was Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Morocco, was a speaker on our recent cruise to that country. It seems that, subsequent to this position in Morocco he has done a lot of work with Asian countries and thus he gave a talk about North Korea and stressed the rationality of the ruling Kim Dynasty. It has not escaped the Kim family’s notice that dictators who gave up their nuclear weapons programs eventually lost their lives (see Saddam Hussein, for example, and Muammar Qaddafi). Thus the media description of the Kim leaders as “crazy” is inaccurate. In Ginsberg’s view, the correct way to think about North Korea is that it is a successful family business for the Kims.

What to do about a nuclear-capable North Korea? In Ginsberg’s view the Obama Administration’s policy of “strategic patience” (i.e., doing nothing for 8 years) has unfortunately left us with no good options. The North Koreans are so heavily armed at this point and Seoul is so close (about 20 miles) from the DMZ that any kind of military assault on North Korea presents an intolerable risk to South Koreans. Basically we will have to admit that China is the only real power in that corner of the world and humbly beg them to help us out.

(After the talk I asked Ginsberg “If it is a business, why not offer them $20 billion per year to live comfortably in Switzerland? That’s nothing compared to what we’re spending on our military response.” He said that it wouldn’t work because the Kims were having too much fun being at the head of a cult of personality, but I still think it is worth a try! Switzerland is a lot nicer than North Korea and $20 billion is probably more than they’re extracting for personal use from the North Korean economy.)

Full post, including comments

Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security has a chapter on America’s favorite program: SSDI. Here are some excerpts:

Just as Social Security has become the dominant source of income for most older Americans, so has it become the nation’s default welfare program. Neither role was part of the agency’s founding mission, which envisioned Social Security as a modest source of income to augment people’s savings and pensions. Yet here the program finds itself, some 80 years later, paying out benefits under two programs to more than 20 million disabled Americans. That’s a huge number in its own right and even more so considering how many additional lives and livelihoods are affected by the $200 billion in annual benefits the disabled receive.

The rules for disability benefit eligibility are quite demanding. They are less strict if you are younger, however. For example, someone who is disabled prior to age 25 can collect disability benefits with only 6 quarters of covered earnings.

Another key point (which applies to the non-disabled as well): you can obtain up to 4 quarters of coverage in a given quarter simply by earning enough money in that quarter.

So perhaps the optimum SSDI strategy for a lot of Americans is to work for about 6 months at a reasonably high salary and then become disabled prior to age 25? Maybe not:

We’ve had several people with disabled children ask us how their child could collect child benefits while they themselves are still alive, and child survivor benefits after they die. Just as we were about to tell them they only needed to apply for their child to receive them if that child was disabled prior to age 22, they stopped us dead in our tracks. They did so by telling us either (1) their child was working or (2) their child was receiving disability benefits on the child’s own work record. In both cases, this meant the child may have disqualified himself or herself, forever , for both disabled child and child survivor benefits. The reason is that for disabled children to collect on their parents’ work records, they not only have to have been disabled before age 22, but they have to stay disabled. And if your child earns too much money in even one year, Social Security will view the child as not having remained disabled. For 2016, the limit was $13,560, with some adjustment for work expenses. That’s not a lot of money. In one case, a parent told us they had employed their disabled child themselves for one year to make the child feel he played a meaningful role in society. (In fact, the child had not earned his pay and had not been able to continue coming to work.) When we asked how much the child had been paid, we winced. It was about $1,000 more than the annual limit, meaning the parent may well have disqualified the child for the rest of the child’s life from collecting benefits on the parent’s work record.

Readers: Please read Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security and figure this out and then give us the answer in the comments section!

Related:

• Who funded America’s opiate epidemic? You did.

Full post, including comments

“This Is How Sexism Works in Silicon Valley My lawsuit failed. Others won’t.” is an excerpt from Ellen Pao’s Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change, a book released today.

One part of the Ellen Pao lawsuit that never made sense to me was “Why would the Kleiner partners want to make themselves poorer by pushing out a high performing junior partner?”

The excerpt explains some of this. First, it seems that Pao was essentially hired as a secretary, not as an investor:

When I first got the three pages of specs for a chief-of-staff position at Kleiner Perkins in 2005, it was almost as if someone had copied my résumé. … John Doerr wanted his new chief of staff to “leverage his time,” which he valued at $200,000 per hour. [actually worth a lot more under the California child support formula]

It was fun having sex with a married guy at work:

[Ajit Nazre and I] started seeing each other and had what eventually amounted to a short-lived, sporadic fling. It was fun bonding over work. Ajit told me the history of the firm and gave me the scoop on departed partners, and I felt like I was at last being let in on company secrets. Finally I had someone who was willing to talk about the dysfunction we saw in our workplace, and to be honest about how decisions were really made.

You know that you’re with a homophobe if your female partner objects to you having sex with other men:

During our first date in New York, he told me during hours of conversation that he had previously been with men, something I never had a problem with but which would later be used in the press as evidence that our marriage was a sham. We got engaged just six weeks after we met.

Here’s the most interesting part, though…

One secret of the venture-capital world is that many firms run on vote trading. A person might offer to vote in favor of investing in another partner’s investment so that partner will support his upcoming investment. Many firms, including Kleiner, also had a veto rule: Any one person could veto another member’s investment. No one ever exercised a veto while I was there, but fear of it motivated us to practice the California art of superficial collegiality, where everything seems tan and shiny on the outside but behind closed doors, people would trash your investment, block it, or send you on unending “rock fetches” — time-consuming, unproductive tasks to stall you until you gave up.

Venture capital’s underbelly of competitiveness exists in part because the more I invest, the less money for you, my partner, to make your investments. And we’re all trying to make as many investments as possible because chances are low that any one investment is going to be successful. Partners can increase their own odds by excluding all of your investments. And as a junior partner you faced another dilemma: Your investments could be poached by senior partners. You wanted to pitch your venture so it would be supported but not so much that it would be stolen. Once a senior partner laid claim to a venture you were driving, you were better off just keeping quiet.

In other words, it may be that Kleiner wasn’t a pure partnership and therefore Pao’s allegations might not have required each Kleiner partner to act against his or her self-interest. (Though, even in a state where a jury was willing to award $417 million to a woman who used talcum powder (USA Today), Pao’s lawyers couldn’t convince her jury.)

I’ll be interested to hear from readers who decide to invest in Ms. Pao’s book.

Related:

• Ellen Pao’s new job?
• Global douchebag circuit: Aspen Institute, Ellen Pao, and Buddy Fletcher
• What should Ellen Pao’s forthcoming book be titled?
• Litigious Minds Think Alike: Divorce litigators react to the Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins lawsuit
• Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins wrap-up

 

Full post, including comments

Given that the only one who can accurately estimate the true cost of paying Social Security benefits is God (since only God knows exactly how long each of us, including the yet-to-be-born, will live), it isn’t surprising that people would differ on whether or not Social Security is solvent.

What is kind of interesting is that we can find this difference of opinion within one book: Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.

The book has three authors. One is a professor of economics at Boston University. He says that the system is broken and bankrupt:

Our Social Security system is a disgrace, not in its objectives or in the tremendous help it has provided older people over the years, but in the way it’s been designed and the way it’s been financed. Its complexity is beyond belief. The formula for the Social Security benefits of a married spouse involves ten complex mathematical functions, one of which is in four dimensions! It leads all kinds of people to make all kinds of mistakes in deciding when to take benefits and what benefits to take. And the good folks at Social Security will far too often tell you things that are one hundred percent untrue with one hundred and fifty percent conviction.

Democracy is collective choice by the people. But having indecipherable institutions, be they our Social Security system, our tax system, our health-care system, or our financial system, deprives the people of the knowledge they need to make choices. Instead it leaves social choice not to the people but to the bureaucrats, who get to decide what’s best. The way the new Social Security law was passed is about as good an example as one can have of the incredibly nondemocratic processes that suffuse “America’s democracy.” I say bureaucrats rather than elected officials because our representatives are also at the mercy of the bureaucrats. Indeed, there is, I’d wager, not a single member of Congress with detailed knowledge of Social Security’s 2,728 rules or its tens of thousands of rules about those rules. And when it comes to Social Security, the big picture is the sum of all the small pictures.

Radical change in our Social Security system is inevitable for the simple reason that the system is broke—indeed, in worse fiscal shape than Detroit’s pensions when that city declared bankruptcy. My evidence for this? It’s the $26 trillion infinite-horizon fiscal gap shown in table IVF1 of the 2015 Social Security Trustees Report. This present value shortfall is net of the system’s trust fund and is almost $1 trillion larger than the system’s fiscal gap reported in 2014. The table shows that Social Security is 31 percent underfunded.

The economics labeling problem is the reason that the Inform Act has been endorsed by more than 1,200 economists, including 17 Nobel laureates (see www.theinformact.org ). The Inform Act mandates infinite-horizon fiscal gap accounting by government agencies for the entire fiscal enterprise. My own estimate based on the Congressional Budget Office’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario Projections puts the country’s overall fiscal gap at $199 trillion for 2015. This is 53 percent of the present value of all future federal taxes, so our federal government, taken as a whole, is 53 percent underfunded. Stated differently, we need a 53 percent hike in all federal taxes to permit our federal government to meet all its expenditure commitments. And if one focuses just on Social Security, the requisite immediate and permanent Social Security FICA tax hike to ensure that Social Security pays all scheduled benefits is 31 percent!

The less our generation pays, the more your kids and grandkids will have to pay; mine, too. And we are moving full speed ahead to leave our kids and grandkids with fiscal bills that are far, far beyond their capacity to pay.

The other two authors are journalists and they are quite sanguine about the system; it just needs a couple of tweaks:

even the darkest official forecast still assures people as young as 18 today something like 75 percent of the paychecks their elders are currently receiving. Official forecasts, however, are deeply misleading. That’s because they rely on the notion that there’s a Social Security “trust fund” that is running out of money; that a so-called Social Security lockbox has been “raided” to pay for other expenditures. Such palaver is misleading, if not arrant nonsense. First of all, the so-called trust fund is an accounting fiction: the money supposedly stashed away for future generations is nearly $ 3 trillion worth of U.S. government bonds— Uncle’s Sam’s IOUs that he gives as a legal promise to pay back what he’s borrowed.

Many of us will give a little. Some will give more than others— presumably Americans who earn enough not to need Social Security’s checks. There will be a huge outcry, as there always is when people are asked to pay more or get less.

if we changed, starting in 2021, the way in which benefits are indexed— from using average wage growth to using inflation as the basis— the actuary reports that we would not only wipe out the entire Social Security deficit over the next 75 years but in fact build a substantial surplus. Indeed, even over the infinite time horizon Larry favors, 89 percent of the deficit would be eliminated by this one change alone.

Alternatively, according to the actuary, we could increase the normal retirement age three months per year starting for those aged 62 in 2017 until it reaches 70 in 2032 and increase it one month every two years thereafter. Deficit reduction? Sixty percent over 75 years; 48 percent, infinite horizon.

Larry has interesting ideas for replacing Social Security with a fairer and better program. They’re never going to happen. We’re not going to replace an eighty-year-old program that has become an enormous bureaucracy, with rules to match, and that touches the lives of virtually every American.

 

Only someone with a crystal ball can say who is right, of course. Certainly Detroit had plenty of actuaries who signed off on its fiscal vitality. The last word from the economist:

Yes, Paul, I know you and Phil feel this will never happen and that small adjustments will be made and that all will be fine. This is Panglossian in the extreme, as a quick glance at Argentina’s century-long economic decline confirms. Yes, things that can’t go on will stop. But they will stop too late. The fact that the Social Security actuaries raised their, not my, measure of the system’s unfunded liability by almost $1 trillion in one year shows how quickly things are changing and why small, slow changes won’t work any better for Social Security than they did for Detroit.

More: Read Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.

Related:

• Japan proves that macroeconomics is a branch of astrology?
• Labor until you are at least 70

Full post, including comments

Social Security was set up so that a married couple that put $X in would get more cash than a single worker who put $X in (see Social Security: How do you run a retirement system for people who spend like drug dealers? for how this tends to make Social Security a system that takes from the poor and gives to the rich; part of how we tax the rich more heavily than almost any other country, but don’t really help the poor).

Back in 1935 when Social Security was established, however, Americans couldn’t envision the world of no-fault (“unilateral”) divorce that would be established by 1980 in nearly every state (see “History of Divorce”).

What happens when you combine Social Security with a no-fault, no-shame divorce system? Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security” explains:

Social Security provides incentives, sometimes very strong incentives, to change your marital status. There are, depending on your circumstances, reasons to get married, reasons to stay married, and incentives to divorce, to remarry, and not to remarry. These decisions hinge on many factors, of course. But play your Social Security marital status cards right and it can mean making or keeping more money, and, in some cases, a lot more money. Play them wrong and you can get seriously singed for the rest of your life.

It turns out that, for Americans who get divorced, the median length of first marriages—the length of time by which 50 percent of them end—is 8 years. That means more than half of the divorced may be making a big, if not huge, financial mistake with regard to future Social Security benefits, especially our female readers. Women currently file roughly two-thirds of divorce cases in the United States, but women are the prime beneficiaries of sticking out a marriage for 10 years. The simple fact is that you need to stay married 10 years and not a day less to be able to collect divorced spousal and divorced survivor benefits as an ex. So, we caution you not to officially unhitch before a decade’s up without at least considering these costs.

The new [Obama-era] law encourages divorce, as we’ll explain in Chapter 11. It’s true that Paul and Jan would have benefited had they gotten divorced, because each could have taken spousal benefits on the other’s record. But the way the law reads now, the only way for same-aged couples who were 62 by January 1, 2016, to do what Paul did (collect a full spousal benefit while waiting till 70 to take his retirement benefit) is to get divorced two years before they reach full retirement age—an amicable divorce (amicable to the point of intimate, even). Then, after six years of equally amicable cohabitation, they can reunite, maybe even throw a new wedding to celebrate. Want to guess how much they could afford to spend on the event just from having collected spousal benefits on each other for the four years between full retirement age (66) and age 70? If both were top earners, $128,000 in 2016 dollars. If they were not top earners, but getting only the average benefit these days—$15,000 a year—they would still have collected $60,000 over the four years.

People who divorced after being married for 10 or more years—and thus became eligible for ex-spousal benefits—have an advantage over married couples under the new law, provided they are grandparented against post-FRA deeming. If they were at least 62 before January 2, 2016, they can file for a full ex-spousal benefit when they reach their FRA and then wait till 70 to collect their retirement benefit, which will have grown all the while. They can do this only if their ex is at least 62 and they’ve been divorced for two years when they do this, or if their ex already is receiving retirement or disability benefits or has filed for retirement benefits and suspended them. So then does it pay to get divorced?

As before, Gene and Joan were both too young to file and suspend before the end of April 2016. But, being 62 before January 2, 2016, they are both grandparented so that neither will be deemed when they reach FRA. If they remain married, as we’ve said, one will have to file for their retirement benefit earlier than 70 to enable the other to file a restricted application just for spousal benefits, while letting their own retirement max out until age 70. However, as we suggested in Chapter 1, they could cook up some irreconcilable differences and get divorced at age 64. Then, at age 66, each could collect full divorced spousal benefits on the other’s work record while letting their own retirement benefits grow. If they were very high earners, this could mean $120,000 more just for getting divorced. After 70, they could reconcile those irreconcilable differences and remarry. Meanwhile, between 64 and 70, they could remain together. If anyone asks why, they could say they were attempting to patch up their relationship.

THE THIRD INCENTIVE IS A PERVERSE ONE: TO GET REMARRIED EVERY DECADE Having been married for a decade, once you get divorced, you retain the right to potentially collect divorced spousal and divorced survivor benefits from your ex’s work record. After being married for a decade, staying married won’t increase what you can receive based on your spouse’s earnings, whether dead or alive. So, the gold diggers out there might consider shopping for a second spouse, preferably a high-earning one, to marry for a decade and then divorce. Social Security generally won’t let you collect more than one benefit at a time. But if you have multiple exes on whom you can collect, you can collect on the one who provides the highest benefit available at any given time. Will getting remarried and staying remarried wipe out your ability to collect spousal and survivor benefits on your prior spouse’s work record? Yes, when it comes to divorced spousal benefits; no, when it comes to survivor benefits, provided you remarry after 60. And if you remarry before 60 and an ex dies, you can get divorced if it pays to receive a survivor benefit from that first ex. Then you remarry after turning 60.

And one of the best parts of spouse-hopping is this: when you start collecting early on a different former spouse’s work record, Early Retirement Reductions from taking benefits on another spouse at an earlier date don’t carry over, as we will illustrate shortly.

Why would anyone not want to remarry? Because remarrying wipes out your ticket to divorced spousal benefits on any ex’s work record to whom you were married for at least a decade. Remarrying before age 60 also wipes out your eligibility for survivor benefits on any deceased former spouse’s work record for as long as you stay remarried. So be careful before you strategically remarry.

A group of people who stay married will receive less cash from the government than a group that divorces:

Divorce Benefits Are Not Subject to the Family Maximum Benefit Benefits to divorced ex-spouses are not restricted by the FMB and don’t affect what your current spouse and children can receive. This secret means that the spousal benefit for your divorced ex-spouse may be higher than for your current spouse.

How can it work in practice?

It is time at last for the story of William H. Gigolo, our hypothetical master of Social Security’s marital status game. He worked not a day in his life (so any excess spousal benefit will also be a full spousal benefit), but instead lived off the relatively high earnings of three lovely ex-wives—call them Sarah, Sally, and Suzie. In each case, William waited until their 10th anniversary, chose a romantic restaurant, and over dessert, announced he was filing for divorce. Positing William as a sociopath, we picture him pleased to have lived off successive exes and helped himself to half their assets thereafter. Now 62 and single for 2 years, he remains attractive to women,

Since a wife has to be at least 62 for the husband to collect spousal benefits, William was careful to marry at least one ex older than himself. This ex, Sarah, is 64 and the lowest earner. The next-highest earner is Sally, 60. Suzie is only 56, but she’s earned more than the others. To maximize his lifetime Social Security benefits, William files for a divorced spousal benefit at 62 and starts to collect half of Sarah’s full retirement benefit, although reduced by 30 percent because he takes it early. Then, after 2 years, when Sally turns 62, William files for a divorced spousal benefit based on her earnings record. And why not? Since he’s now eligible to collect on two exes, he can file for benefits on both. He won’t get two divorced spousal benefits—just the larger of the two. But since Sally’s full retirement benefit is larger than Sarah’s, he gets hers. And here’s another advantage from William’s perspective: he’ll be able to collect half of Sally’s full retirement benefit, but it will be reduced by only 13.3 percent, not 30 percent! Why? Because William is now 64 and his early claiming reduction is smaller; that is, the reduction in a spousal benefit from claiming early does not carry over from one ex to another. Yes, he claimed 4 years early (before his FRA) on the divorced spousal benefit provided by Sarah, but he is doing so only 2 years early on the divorced spousal benefit provided by Sally. So far, so good, as long as you have no scruples. We have already stipulated that William doesn’t. So his cash-out plan is working. And here’s a yet more perverse part three. When Suzie reaches 62 and William hits 68, he can start collecting a completely unreduced divorced spousal benefit on Suzie’s heftier earnings record since he doesn’t start collecting this particular benefit (which exceeds the other two) until or after he reaches his FRA. (In William’s case it’s after.) Is William done with his optimization? Not necessarily. Let’s fast-forward to his 70th birthday and suppose that Sally, who waited until FRA to start collecting her benefit, dies. Sally’s full retirement benefit, while lower than Suzie’s, exceeds the half of Suzie’s on which William has most recently been collecting. So William can now file for and begin collecting a completely unreduced divorced widower benefit on Sally’s record. That benefit would be equal to 100 percent of Sally’s full retirement benefit. Fast-forward again. William is now 76 and Suzie dies, having also waited until FRA to collect her retirement benefit. What might William do? He files for an unreduced survivor benefit based on Suzie’s earnings record. Fast-forward one last time. William is now 88. He’s met a very lovely 94-year-old named Sandra, who earned more than any of the exes and is on her last legs. William realizes that he can marry Sandra and, after 9 months, qualify for survivor benefits on Sandra’s earnings record. He whisks Sandra off to Las Vegas for a quickie marriage and, 9 months to the day after their nuptials, Sandra falls and breaks her hip. Her last leg gives out. So does the rest of her. William leaves the funeral early in order to get to the local Social Security office before it closes and file for a full (unreduced) widower benefit on Sandra’s account. This appears to be William’s last Social Security play, but who knows? He’s still got his looks and, as you read this, he’s on Match.com checking out his options. Considering that there were 3.2 million women aged 85 and older in 2012, and only 1.8 million men of those ages, William’s pickings are far from slim.

One of the authors says this whole system has developed too many special cases. Certainly the designers don’t seem to have imagined the day when Americans would be marrying or divorcing with an eye to the cash incentives. The author

Full post, including comments

There is nothing that students at top schools love more than (a) denouncing Charles Murray for purportedly writing about a correlation between race and IQ, and (b) celebrating the merits of studying among a diverse student body (therefore we need affirmative action programs). Yet “Even With Affirmative Action, Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago” (nytimes) shows that they have chosen to attend schools where (a) the admissions officers behave as though they agree with the race-IQ thoughtcrime, and (b) they are unlikely to see a non-white/Asian student.

If these good-hearted young people are as passionate about diversity as they say, why didn’t they choose to save a ton of money and attend a state-run school whose student body is more representative of the American population (which leaves open the question, still, of whether to count up all Americans and sort by skin color or to look at the population of 18-year-old Americans)?

Full post, including comments

The founder of Bye Aerospace has written an IEEE Spectrum article about a 2-seat 3-hour trainer: “Cheaper, Lighter, Quieter: The Electrification of Flight Is at Hand”

I’m skeptical that this small company, founded in 2007, can do what has eluded Airbus and Pipistrel. But the editors of Spectrum are supposed to know stuff about electricity. So maybe this isn’t crazy.

It starts with a huge weight savings on the engine:

You rev the motor not with a throttle but a rheostat, and its high torque, available over a magnificently wide band of motor speeds, is conveyed to the propeller directly, with no power-sapping transmission. At 20 kilograms (45 pounds), the motor can be held in two hands, and it measures only 10 centimeters deep and 30 cm in diameter. An equivalent internal-combustion engine weighs about seven times as much and occupies some 120 by 90 by 90 cm.

Then there have been big improvements in batteries, supposedly, since 2007:

Bye Aerospace has worked with Panasonic and Dow Kokam; currently we use a battery pack composed of LG Chem’s 18650 lithium-ion batteries, so called because they’re 18 millimeters in diameter and 65 mm long, or a little larger than a standard AA battery. LG Chem’s cell has a record-breaking energy density of 260 watt-hours per kilogram, about 2.5 times as great as the batteries we had when we began working on electric aviation. Each cell also has a robust discharge capability, up to about 10 amperes. Our 330-kg battery pack easily allows normal flight, putting out a steady 18 to 25 kW and up to 80 kW during takeoff. The total energy storage capacity of the battery pack is 83 kWh.

A little fantasy doesn’t hurt:

Should something go wrong with the batteries in midflight, an alarm light flashes in the cockpit and the pilot can disconnect the batteries, either electronically or mechanically. If this happens, the pilot can then glide back to the airfield, which the plane will always be near, given that it is serving as a trainer.

This isn’t true even for pattern work at a typical busy training airport where the control tower might say “extend upwind two miles.”

Full post, including comments

As far as I have seen, saying “calm down” is nearly always a waste of breath. ” “Trump Isn’t a Threat to Our Democracy. Hysteria Is.” (nytimes) and associated comments illustrate this principle nicely.

The authors, eggheads from Yale and Oxford, saying “calm down”:

The sky is not falling and no lights are flashing red, but Americans have nonetheless embraced a highly charged, counterproductive way of thinking about politics as a “new Cold War” between democracy and totalitarianism.

History raises serious doubts about how helpful this tyrannophobic focus on catastrophe, fake news and totalitarianism really is in dealing with the rise of the populist right, of which this bumbling hothead of a president is a symptom.

If there is one lesson from the 20th century worth learning, it is that an exclusive focus on the defense of liberal fundamentals against a supposed totalitarian peril often exacerbates the social and international conflicts it seeks to resolve.

Reader comments, picked by the NYTimes editors:

Democracy purposefully corrupted in so many different ways put Trump in power.

Seeing the threat that Trump is to democracy is a rational conclusion to rational analytical thought.

Word salad dressed up as coherent thought. Trump IS a threat to our democracy and to dismiss everyone who sees it as being hyperbolic is disingenuous . You can’t ignore how millions of people feel.

No, Trump and his enablers have not yet declared themselves our forever rulers. But they are taking steps to undermine the government and our system of the systems of checks and balances.

Some reader comments, upvoted by other readers:

Democrats are united in wanting a fairer distribution of the economic pie. The Republicans are not. They are the tyranny.

And what of the recent reported survey findings that more than half of self-identified Republicans would support suspension of the 2020 presidential election until the country could fix the mythical voter fraud problem

I would rather err on the side of fighting tyranny now, rather than regretting its implementation later. As an earlier commentator observed – of course, panic and hysteria are bad. But anyone paying attention to the current state of democratic institutions in the USA should be alarmed. Perhaps the authors of this piece have not been paying attention.

Full post, including comments