Category: Uncategorized

Friends have a 13-year-old and are afraid that if they let him build a gaming desktop computer that he will hide in his room until it is time for him to go off to college. They are hoping to hector him into agreeing with them that the real world and the social world of humans is more interesting than the virtual worlds created by the best minds of the game world. Their household currently is Mac-only, which the young man considers unsuitable for gaming. One of their ideas is that he can get a Windows laptop and then they can take it away from him if he overindulges. I’m wondering if there is a technological solution built into Windows 10.

This article contains screen shots of a non-admin user being limited to certain hours within a day and/or to a maximum number of hours per day. So does this one. The official Microsoft page also suggests that this can be done but apparently they didn’t have the energy to make screen shots. So it looks as though Microsoft has built in anti-addiction features.

That leads to the next question: Is it practical for a teenage gamer to be a non-admin user of a Windows 10 machine? He is going to build the machine with a friend whose parents are more liberal. Can he install everything that he needs and eventually turn over super-admin power to mom or dad? Will he have to bug them every hour for the next five years to come over and type the admin password? Will these devoted worshipers of everything that Steve Jobs might once have touched be able to execute their parental control role without thoroughly sullying themselves in the filth of Windows 10?

Related:

• TED talk about how kids who play video games do better on most cognitive tests (don’t forget also the Turkish Airlines video regarding TED talks)
• Recommendations for building a new PC

Full post, including comments

I was chatting with an 18-year-old Canadian last month. He said that the drinking age in Quebec was 18, but 19 in most of the rest of Canada. He said “I couldn’t drink in the U.S., right? The age is 21?” I replied with “Yes, but you could have a machine gun.”

[I was skeptical of my own statement so I checked in with a gun-loving friend and it turned out to be true. In a typical state anyone can buy a machine gun as long as he or she is willing to pay an extra $200 for a “tax stamp.” However, my friend explained that there is a limited supply of fully automatic rifles available for private ownership. Consequently the young Quebecois would need to have about $20,000. The gun collector also explained that machine guns are not effective weapons: “most shots miss, and when you walk around with ammunition, you can only carry so much. The Army, for example, never uses their M4 rifles on full auto. They did in Vietnam and fired 50,000 shots per enemy soldier killed (true number).”]

Full post, including comments

I was at an aviation convention last month. A married couple had recently sold a 70-person company, which they had founded and then managed for 15 years. What did they miss the least? “Managing people,” responded the wife. “About half were like family. They were great people and we miss them, especially assembly workers who were grateful just to have an air-conditioned workplace.” How could this then be the least-missed aspect then? “The middle managers were the worst. About half the employees were best at complaining, overestimating their value and competence, and making our lives hell.”

Also there at the convention was the manager of a group of Swiss engineers developing a new business jet. I asked if the American perception of Europeans working smarter than than harder and/or longer hours was accurate. Could they get this plane certified and out the door on schedule via superior competence and organization while working 9-5? The manager simply laughed. It was not a 9-5 job, apparently.

Full post, including comments

The St. Lawrence river east of Quebec City is an important summer feeding ground for 13 species of whales (source). The most common place to start a cruise to see these whales is from the north side of the river near Tadoussac, Quebec. Unfortunately this is a 6-hour round-trip drive from the big airport in Quebec City and a 3-hour round-trip drive from the smaller airport at Charlevoix. If you’re touring around in a light airplane, however, you can land on the south side of the river, at the Riviere-du-Loup airport (CYRI), and jump in a taxi for 10 minutes to the Croisieres AML pier. It takes about one hour to steam out to the prime whale-watching area, but it would be a cool pleasant trip on a nice day.

On our June 2016 cruise we saw four fin whales (the world’s second-largest), a couple of minke whales (the smallest baleen whale), and a beluga. Blue whales arrive starting in July.

One caveat: If it is gusting 21 knots at the airport, as it was when we landed, it will be ugly out on the “river.” Our 250-passenger boat was tossed around as though out in the ocean on a slightly rough day.

Logistics: The folks on the ground at the CYRI airport don’t seem to answer the phone, even for Canadian Flight Service. They are open more or less normal hours, however, and you can get back to your plane without a call-out charge until at least 6 pm. The airport has full-serve fuel but you need to taxi up to the pumps. I didn’t see a tug on the field. If you don’t take fuel prepare for some reasonably hefty fees ($100). Taxi Beaulieu, 418-862-3111, is fast and efficient. The VIP lounge on the whale watch is a cozy nest with picture windows facing the bow; worth the extra $30 and includes beverages (though it could use a big fresh air vent). Pack your own sandwiches for the boat, whose food selection was described as “bad” even by the employees.

Full post, including comments

Happy July 4th! We’re independent as a nation so in theory we get to decide what kind of nation we want to have. Today I want to understand an apparent logical contradiction.

A bunch of my Facebook friends fall into a category that I call “robot alarmists.” They believe that computers and robots are getting so sophisticated that at least half of the current American workforce will be unable to find any job at all. Thus they support a universal basic income (“UBI”). Here are some example posts:

Some variant of [universal basic income] is inevitable if civilization is to survive the invention of robots. However, there is a much deeper flaw here: the notion that consumerism itself can continue forever. It can’t, at least not with 10 billion humans trying to live like Americans.

Bring on the robotax 🙂 Since robots stand to boost profit at the expense of labor (what else is new?!), it stands to reason that buying a robot should be heavily taxed, with the proceeds going to the unemployed.

Labor shortages have been predicted since I was in college and here we are, short on jobs and money, but long on billionaires and robots. Even if they’re right, all it means is more demand pressure on creating robots to fill those jobs.

This is how they take over our world: it’s just too damn convenient, efficient and profitable to use them. And of course we will keep improving them because that makes them faster, better, cheaper yet! Until one day they break the tether and run… [over an article on a gas leak robot]

The only option left once you give all the jobs to robots… [over an article on UBI]

Because we just HAVE to go faster! And replace humans with robots. Right? Or is there some other logical reason why we NEED faster computers? I’m not coming up with any [over an article on microprocessor trying to stay on the Moore’s Law curve]

Central to the case for a UBI is the way it would help prepare us for a world in which the new technological revolution, driven by artificial intelligence and robotics, will, over time, transform the nature of work and the type and number of jobs. [UK Labour politician]

I would be more worried about about a collapse in the job market if I could find someone reliable to weed our yard for less than 3X the federal minimum wage or someone skilled in carpentry at less than 6X. But let’s assume that these folks are sincere. They believe that in the reasonably near-term, our society’s wealth will come from the robots that some citizens and corporations own plus from the labor of an elite group of workers who do things that robots cannot do.

Why do the same people then support current U.S. immigration policy and advocate for an increase in the number of immigrants on the same terms? The U.S. immigration system is not targeted at people with elite skills, high education levels, and high income in whatever country they’re living in now. Thus we are going to be bringing in people who cannot read and may not be able to speak or understand English. If the average American’s income will just be whatever robots produce divided by the total population as a universal basic income (minus any costs to administer the government handouts, of course), what would be the value to current U.S. citizens of increasing the denominator?

Suppose that the goal is humanitarian relief. Citizens of Syria, Afghanistan, and other countries do not have a good life in their home countries. We will bring them to the U.S., give them a universal basic income, and they can be happy going to Disneyland every day. If that is the goal, however, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to give a larger number of designated unfortunates a smaller “universal basic income” (“universal sub-basic income”?) that would enable them to live comfortably in a lower-cost-of-living part of the world?

In short, in the old days the argument used by advocates of immigration is that they would grow our economy (and tax base) by working. Today, however, the people who argue that we will have a vast surplus of human labor continue to advocate for immigration and a larger population of the humans most of whom they believe will be economic parasites of either robots or exceptionally skilled humans. How does that make sense?

Full post, including comments

Chess nerds: What’s a good chess set to give to a family with an 8-year-old child who is learning? The “club” boards seem to have letters and numbers in addition to the standard squares. Are those necessary or helpful for someone who is learning? I don’t remember having that when my dad was teaching me how to play.

If the pieces are wood, is it more common to have the black pieces actually be black? Or just a dark brown?

The sets at Amazon seem to be mostly pretty cheap/crummy. I want to buy something that could potentially last a lifetime but at the same time is not so expensive that it has to be protected from children. The family doesn’t live in a McMansion so the set should fold up (i.e., the board should fold up and store the pieces).

[Separately, is learning and playing chess obsolete now that we live in a world of ever more sophisticated computer- and video-games?]

Full post, including comments

From the New York Post: “Professor who donates sperm in city bathrooms has sired 22 kids.”

Some excerpts:

The 6-foot-2 CUNY Kingsborough math professor [Ari Nagel] has served as a sperm donor for dozens of locals, siring 22 kids over the past 12 years with 18 women of various backgrounds.

He will also offer his services in his home near Downtown Brooklyn, but mama wannabes are often more comfortable meeting in public.

Once a location is chosen, Nagel will go into the bathroom, pleasure himself while watching porn on his iPhone — “You can’t connect to Target Wi-Fi if you’re connecting to a porn site, so I use my cell service,” he says — and ejaculate into an Instead Softcup, a type of menstrual cup.

He then delivers the specimen to the woman, who goes into the ladies’ restroom and inserts it into her cervix.

Without the explicit legal protections afforded to sperm banks, what about post-conception litigation?

The first five women he worked with successfully sued him for child support, and nearly half of his paycheck is garnished for his offspring.

“I don’t know what’s more surprising: that five sued or that 17 didn’t,” Nagel says. “They were all well aware there was no financial obligation on my part. They all promise in advance they won’t sue.”

(Under New York family law, he actually should have lost close to 100 percent of his paycheck to the five plaintiffs. Assuming one child per mother, the first plaintiff would receive 17 percent of his pre-tax income, the second woman to sue would get 17 percent of the 83 percent remainder, etc. Due to the fact that child support is not deductible from income, Professor Nagel would quickly get to the poverty line from a combination of child support orders and federal, state, and city income taxes. Assuming that he starts with $100,000 per year, the first plaintiff gets $17,000 per year, the second $14,110, the third $11,711, and the fourth just $9,720 per year. The professor is now left with $47,458 of pre-tax income but close to $40,000 of that would go to pay taxes. The fifth plaintiff ought to get $8,068 but in theory the system is not supposed to reduce a defendant below the poverty line. Note that it may not be accidental that the first five women sued. Due to the difference in cash values assigned to children under New York law, the sixth and later women don’t have a claim worth pursuing against Professor Nagel. So it would be more accurate to say that 100 percent of the people who could have sued him and gotten something actually did sue.)

Related:

• “Child Support Litigation without a Marriage”

Full post, including comments

“Possible Nurses Strike At Brigham And Women’s Hospital Averted” gives some insight into how much we’ll be paying for health insurance going forward:

On wages, the 52 percent of Brigham nurses who are not yet at the top step for seniority would see a 17 percent rise in wages during the three-year contract. Nurses who are at the top step, meaning they’ve been at the Brigham for 18 years or more, would see a 4.5 percent increase over three years.

 

Full post, including comments

Cessna has released a few more details regarding its big single-engine turboprop (the Pilatus PC-12, designed almost 30 years ago, is currently the only game in this town).

Pilots will use a standard Garmin G3000 avionics suite and enjoy a modern GE engine with FADEC (Cessna press release). Fuel efficiency and speed are a little better than on the PC-12. The pressurization system is a vast improvement, with a 6,130′ cabin at 31,000′ (compare to 10,000′ inside when it is 30,000′ outside for the PC-12). This should cut fatigue substantially on long flights. Is it actually bigger inside than the PC-12? I asked the PR folks and they responded with “The cabin will feature a flat floor and will be the largest in this segment with a width of 63 inches and a height of 58 inches.” (Pilatus claims a width of 60 inches and a height of 58 inches.) Flying says that the new plane will cost at least $4.8 million, meaning that it will be nearly the same out-the-door price as a PC-12 in “executive” configuration (i.e., not just basic commuter airline seats). The standard Pilatus configuration holds 8 in the back plus 2 pilots up front. Cessna’s holds just 6 in the back. From a practical standpoint Pilatus is thus a “two-family” airplane while the Cessna is a “one-family” plane; for business trips either should be fine because it is rare for more than 6 people to need to go to the same destination.

If the cabin noise is substantially lower than in the PC-12 this will likely be a much better family airplane due to the (a) less-punishing noise, (b) lower cabin altitude, (c) simpler engine and familiar-to-most-GA-pilots avionics. For charter operators and two-pilot crews, a used PC-12 at $2-3 million should be the winner due to the larger cabin, greater seating capacity, lower acquisition cost, and reduced business risk due to the long-certified design (which has its flaws, of course, but they are well-known and quantifiable).

Full post, including comments

Prince was a remarkable person, one of the most successful human beings ever. His intelligence and drive freed him from the financial and have-to-go-to-work or have-to-take-care-of-kids constraints that most of us live with, but they also brought him temptations that most of us will never know. Despite his conquest of the music world, Prince apparently succumbed to drug addiction.

What does that have to do with the political candidate that so many people love to hate? Donald Trump was born into a level of wealth that most of us cannot imagine. By maintaining civil relations with his father he could probably have sat on the beach his whole life, never making a decision more challenging than which Club Med would be nice this time of year. Certainly he had the money and leisure time to be an alcoholic, a prescription drug addict, or a street drug addict. Instead of taking on the responsibilities of marriage and children, he could have followed in the footsteps of one of our richest Bostonians, a man roughly Trump’s age, whose reasonably-appropriately-aged girlfriend surprised him by returning early from a trip to Newport and discovered him in bed with two 22-year-olds from Craigslist. (She looked to me for sympathy after this incident and I responded with “There may not be a shortage of guys who would do that if they were billionaires.”)

As Bill Burr notes in this video, starting around 6:30, most of us can’t know what it is like to be tempted at this level. He says “How can I judge these guys? I can barely handle the temptations of Facebook.”

The worst that the Trump-haters at the New York Times could dig up about The Donald is “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private,” in which he purportedly asks a woman to wear a bathing suit (even that part may not be true). Ancient Romans certainly would have expected a lot more depravity from anyone with wealth and power (and maybe modern Romans too? See Silvio Berlusconi.)

I’m not a Trump fan and, given that I vote in Massachusetts, it isn’t worth my time to educate myself regarding the merits of any national political candidate. But I do think that Trump deserves credit for not succumbing to temptations that the rest of us can’t imagine.

Shorter version of the above: Most Americans can’t handle the temptations presented by going into a casino. Trump apparently managed to avoid the temptations presented by owning a casino.

Related:

• the Ring of Gyges

Full post, including comments