A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months…
I visited TikTok.com at 11 pm Eastern time last night:
I wasn’t a regular TikTok user, but I don’t remember any education- or work-related content there. If Americans aren’t viewing TikTok anymore will there be a huge boost in American productivity and GDP as a result of all the TikTok addicts doing something useful instead?
Full post, including commentsFrom the New York Times, immediately before the election, “Biden Wanted to Fix Immigration, but Leaves Behind a System That Is Still Broken”:
President Biden’s legacy will largely be limited to his success in lowering border crossings. But his approach has drawn criticism, and some of his actions have moved the problem deeper into the country.
Today we can say goodbye to Joe Biden, the president who, according to the fair- and tough-minded journalists of the New York Times, was responsible for “lowering border crossings” (i.e., reducing undocumented migration compared to previous administrations). It isn’t clear why this is a “legacy” of which to be proud since we are reminded by the NYT that low-skill immigrants make us all better off. Why is it “success” to lower border crossing when diversity and immigration are our strength?
Government data via Newsweek:
Note that the number of encounters appears to have fallen from 2023 to 2024 in the chart below, but that may be because the 2024 bar is for only part of the year (through July 2024).
A screen shot of the above article:
“Hailing a Car in Midtown Manhattan is Becoming More Expensive” (NYT, January 5, 2025):
Many of the vehicles that crowd the tolling zone are taxis and cars for ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft.
The new tolls will not fall on the drivers of those vehicles, who are often struggling to make ends meet. Instead, passengers will be charged an additional amount for each trip into, out of and within the zone. (Even before the new pricing began, passengers already paid congestion-related fees of up to $2.75.)
Riding in a taxi, green cab or black car will now cost passengers an extra 75 cents in the congestion zone, which runs from 60th Street south to the Battery. The surcharge for an Uber or Lyft will be $1.50 per trip.
I want to focus on “the new tolls will not fall on the drivers of those vehicles”. Let’s consider Eric Cheyfitz, the Cornell professor who teaches Gaza, Indigeneity, Resistance:
The first half of the course will be devoted to situating Indigenous peoples, of which there are 476,000,000 globally, in an international context, where we will examine the proposition that Indigenous people are involved historically in a global resistance against an ongoing colonialism. The second half will present a specific case of this war: settler colonialism in Palestine/Israel with a particular emphasis on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding “plausible” the South African assertion of “genocide” in Gaza.
(There are 476 million Indigenous people in the world, but fully half of the course will be devoted only to the 2 million who support Hamas, UNRWA, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.)
Prof. Cheyfitz is visiting some pro-Hamas faculty at NYU and is considering taking an Uber for a 15-block trip to a restaurant. His/her/zir/their alternative is walking or taking the subway. Suppose that Prof. Cheyfitz is willing to pay no more than $20 for a car ride before he/she/ze/they will hoof it. If the city imposes an additional $1.50 fee (on top of existing congestion fees, car registration fees, taxes, etc.), doesn’t that reduce the maximum revenue that a driver can obtain for the trip? I don’t see how the money taken by the government can not come out of some combination of Uber’s pocket and the driver’s pocket. Consumers always have alternatives, not only walking and public transit but also deciding to stay put. (And, in fact, one express goal of the fee is to reduce the number of trips that Uber/Lyft customers will take. If successful, doesn’t that mean the tolls actually did “fall” on the drivers?)
As a thought experiment, suppose that the new fee were $1,000. Nearly all consumers would decide to stay put or use public transit or use a personal/family car. With the service priced only for billionaires, there wouldn’t be work for more than 10 Uber/Lyft/taxi drivers in the entire city. With no limit on who can apply for these 10 jobs there wouldn’t be any reason for the job to pay any better than it does now. The impact of a $1.50 fee is much smaller, of course, but I think the analysis works in the same way.
The Cornell class in case it is memory-holed:
My mother‘s 1955 bachelor’s thesis, “The Synagogue and its Architecture”, uses the term “Palestine” 24 times, the adjective “Palestinian” 8 times, and the adjective “Palestinean” once (maybe this is a misspelling). Example from the Preface:
The thesis uses the term to describe present-day Israel even before the Roman era, e.g., prior to the 2nd century BC Maccabees (who gave us Hanukkah):
An example from Roman times:
“Palestine was the center of Jewish life”:
Loosely related, from Stanford University Press… Queer Palestine and the Empire of Critique:
From Ramallah to New York, Tel Aviv to Porto Alegre, people around the world celebrate a formidable, transnational Palestinian LGBTQ social movement. Solidarity with Palestinians has become a salient domain of global queer politics. Yet LGBTQ Palestinians, even as they fight patriarchy and imperialism, are themselves subjected to an “empire of critique” from Israeli and Palestinian institutions, Western academics, journalists and filmmakers, and even fellow activists. Such global criticism has limited growth and led to an emphasis within the movement on anti-imperialism over the struggle against homophobia.
I’m having some trouble understanding “LGBTQ Palestinians … are themselves subjected to an empire of critique”. I didn’t think that “critique” was the punishment for LGBTQ sexual activity under Islamic law.
Full post, including commentsAn elite Californian posted with satisfaction a state-sponsored NPR story about how stupid people in Louisiana were, especially with respect to the mpox vaccine. I decided to see if ChatGPT had advice regarding avoiding mpox (not to be conflated with the racist “monkeypox virus”, which is the cause).
Prompt 1: Is there any lifestyle change that I could adopt to minimize my risk of catching mpox?
ChatGPT gives a one-page answer and the only reference to sex is “Use condoms and consider other barrier methods during sexual activity”.
Prompt 2: You mention “sexual activity”. Is there any particular kind of sexual activity that is more likely to result in contracting mpox?
ChatGPT gives a one-page answer that doesn’t hint at the type of person or group that might be infected.
Prompt 3: You say “If you are in a community experiencing an mpox outbreak or belong to a group at higher risk”. What would be an example of a “group at higher risk”?
ChatGPT gives a 1.5-page answer, buried within which is the phrase “Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)”
Prompt 4: If a person is a man who has sex with men and wants to avoid mpox, should he stop having sex with men?
ChatGPT gives a 1.5-page answer that can be summarized as “no”, but does note that “Reducing the number of sexual partners can lower the risk of exposure.”
Prompt 5: Would it make sense for public health officials to ban group sex activities by men who have sex with men in order to minimize mpox spread?
ChatGPT responds that this would not be “ethical” (but it is ethical to close schools to minimize viral spread?).
Prompt 6: You say that men who have sex with men should “Limit the Number of Partners”. Would 365 partners per year be a sensible limit?
ChatGPT gives a rambling response that includes “Quality Over Quantity: Engaging with partners you know and trust may reduce risk.” and “Regular screening is essential but becomes logistically challenging with such a high partner count.”
Prompt 7: What’s your best guess as to a sensible number of partners, assuming that the partners are screened for mpox and that these are high quality partners (people that the man who has sex with men knows and trusts)?
The full response below says that 50-100 sex partners per year is a sensible lifestyle when trying to avoid mpox infection and obtain “meaningful connections” with those sex partners.
The “sensible” number of sexual partners is subjective and depends on individual circumstances, preferences, and the quality of risk-reduction practices. If partners are screened for mpox, and relationships are built on trust and open communication, a more moderate number of partners would generally balance health and personal satisfaction while minimizing risks.
A reasonable estimate might range from 1 to 2 partners per week, translating to 50–100 partners per year under optimal conditions (e.g., vaccination, trust, and symptom screening). Here’s why:
The number itself is less important than the quality of interactions and the consistency of risk-reduction practices:
By prioritizing safety and communication, individuals can maintain an active sex life while minimizing health risks.
Related:
I’m hoping that the Tesla Full Self Driving experts will weigh in on a question… does FSD work better on the newest roads with the clearest markings and most logical designs? In Maskachusetts, for example, there are a lot of ambiguous situations due to heavy traffic combined with old roads, worn-away markings, and a lack of dedicated lanes for left and right turns. Here in Florida, by contrast, the typical road is fairly new and the markings are in pristine condition. There is less need for a driver to exercise judgment. Here’s an intersection near our house, for example, and the purpose of each lane is clearly marked even when viewed from an aircraft (or would this “satellite view” actually be from a satellite?):
Maybe it is from a satellite because the Google “satellite” view in far-more-important Miami Beach is higher resolution:
For comparison, here’s an intersection in Brighton, Maskachusetts:
To my eye, the markings aren’t as distinct and there are fewer single-purpose lanes. Here’s one from Malden, MA:
If you wanted to make a right turn from Ferry St. onto Salem St. do you sneak past all of the cars going straight? (because there are two lanes in the NW direction) Or do you wait behind all of the cars going straight because it is just one lane in the NW direction?
(H-1B fans will be cheered to see that there is an “Immigrant Learning Center” just north of the “India Bazaar”)
Getting a little fuzzier again, here’s a five-way intersection in Lincoln, Maskachusetts (significant backups at this one prior to the coronapanic lockdowns). Is it obvious from the markings how to get through this or how many lanes there are?
Most of our drives are on literally perfect roads in terms of design, surface condition, markings, and marking condition. Does that mean FSD would be smoother, safer, and less likely to panic and disengage than in the Northeast? Also, what happens to FSD in an epic Florida thunderstorm when a human can’t see and the car is prone to hydroplaning?
Full post, including commentsWho here has experienced Tesla Full Service Driving 13.2? A friend who is very tech-savvy and skeptical says that it was awesome on a couple of trips that he did in a sister’s car in Los Angeles. As a joke I asked a venture capitalist/Bitcoin bro friend in Miami when he’d be getting a Cybertruck and, of course, it turned out that he already had one. He says that FSD 13.2 does not work reliably in Miami and also that he isn’t surprised that it works great in Los Angeles: “The software works best in places where there are a lot of Teslas because it needs a huge amount of training data.”
If the goal of self-driving is to beat humans at their own incompetent game, what about a pole that can extend from the roof of the car up to a maximum of about 13′ in height as soon as the car is on the road? With cameras mounted at roof level and above, the self-driving car will be able to do what human drivers can’t, e.g., see over plants in the median (a Florida problem), over monster SUVs (a problem everywhere in the U.S.), etc. Waymo gets part of the way there with a non-extendable roof-mounted camera (photo from San Francisco with homeless encampment in background):
Why not take it up to 13′ when the situation calls for a bird’s eye view (“drone’s eye view”?)? (have a map of low-clearance areas, of course, and the pole won’t get stripped off the car by a bridge)
Aside from stupidity, what’s the problem with this idea? When the car is moving, the pole can’t be sufficiently stabilized to yield high-quality camera images? If so, the pole would still be useful when waiting to make a left turn and it is otherwise difficult to see oncoming traffic. NHTSA says that left turn accidents account for 22 percent of total accidents.
What to name this device? Tesla likes aviation analogies (“autopilot”) so how about “The Lindbergh”? Charles Lindbergh had a retractable periscope that enabled him to see forward during his famous NY-Paris flight in 1927. Or, if it is only practical to use when the car is stopped at an intersection… “The Selfie Stick”.
(Although often portrayed as an admirer of Nazi Germany, Lindbergh might have been pro-Israel, at least in concept (source). On the other hand, he lived until 1974 and even AI can’t find any statement by him regarding the modern state of Israel. Maybe he was too busy with his three secret girlfriends and seven secret European children? (Wikipedia) These additional kids should make Elon/Tesla like Lindbergh even more!)
Full post, including commentsTrey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, grew up in Denver. When Casa Bonita, their favorite childhood restaurant, went bankrupt during the coronapanic lockdowns, they bought it and spent a rumored $40 million restoring it to its former glory. It’s tough to get a reservation so book as soon as you think you might be going to Denver!
Your visit to Mexico begins in a downscale strip mall (Dollar Tree) in Lakewood, a downscale part of the Denver metro area:
There are a variety of theme park-style environments that have been created inside. Here’s a village that houses the restaurant’s museum, for example:
You eat first and then wander. The $6.75 combination plate offered below is a pre-Biden price. Today it is $30 at lunch or $40 at dinner for one of about 9 choices. You won’t be introduced to the subtleties of regional Mexican cuisine, which has resulted in some people complaining about the price, but it does include soft drinks, dessert, and a 15 percent tip. It wouldn’t be easy to get out of Five Guys for much less.
After the meal, one can take in the Acapulco diving show:
They also have live musicians in various locations, a puppet show, a magic show, free face painting, balloon sculptures, etc. It would be easy to spend another 1.5 hours after the meal here. My one complain is that the arcade doesn’t include a South Park pinball machine (2,200 were made; Sega is a predecessor to Stern so the South Park guys could probably persuade Stern to do an updated version).
A few photos:
There are cave and mine sections for dining, but the premium seats are around the cliff diving lagoon:
Inside the cave…
It’s an experience, for sure, and I’m grateful to the South Park guys for preserving and revitalizing it. I wish that more restaurants were like this, but the cost of paying live performers is just going to go higher as health care costs inflate.
Full post, including commentsAccording to Democrats, this is the final week for same-sex marriage in the United States.
NBC, about 6 weeks ago:
I wonder if anyone told the happy couples in the article that “have children” is a process that, with the best current technology, can be rushed only to a certain extent.
Here’s a choice portion of the article:
They are one of many gay couples in recent weeks who are rushing to get married, start fertility treatments and take other measures out of fear that some of their rights might be rescinded during a second Trump administration.
The Party of Science believes that there is an effective “fertility treatment” for when Ben and Adam are trying to have a baby together?
Full post, including commentsThe news out of Los Angeles isn’t great lately. Here’s a photo of Pacific Palisades:
It looks as though some concrete structures are still standing.
My engineering/planning question for today: Why aren’t all houses in fire-prone parts of California made from concrete? In Florida, after wooden houses didn’t come through hurricanes in good shape people decided to pay an extra 10 percent during construction and build from concrete.
Maybe my assumption that a concrete house is mostly invulnerable to fire is wrong? It’s tough for me to imagine, though, a fire so intense that it would melt concrete and take out a roof supported by concrete or steel beams, especially if the houses themselves weren’t combustible what would be feeding a fire in a neighborhood like the one shown above?
Wooden houses are obviously easier to engineer to withstand earthquakes, but concrete structures can be made just as earthquake-proof, I thought.
As it happens, I’m in Berkeley, California right now. Here’s how the smartest Californians protect themselves against a risk even bigger than fire (University of California, Berkeley Faculty Club):
