Category: Uncategorized

I’ve spend part of this school year tutoring a student in AP Statistics. The course seems to be designed to help reinforce the classic paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”. If the goal of high school is to prepare young people for citizenship and making decisions at work, AP Statistics seems like a spectacular failure. If the goal were to help people make decisions, wouldn’t the core of the class be hypothesis testing? People who take high school stats aren’t necessarily going to become professional statisticians but at least if hypothesis testing were the core they could be appropriately skeptical with regard to claims regarding, e.g., the efficacy of a new drug that taxpayers were being asked to pay for.

Hypothesis testing, however, is relegated to the end of the class/textbook/prep books. Thus for most of the class students have little context for why they are learning most of the material. Is it critically important to know what percentage of people think X based on a survey? Maybe for political pollsters who can then tell candidates how to pander to voters, but the most interesting uses of statistics seem generally to involve answering a question about whether an intervention was effective or not.

What do readers who are stats experts say? Would it make sense to weave hypothesis testing into the entire course?

Related:

• “Supplementary materials for teaching AP statistics?”
• “The Wrong Way to Teach Math” (New York Times article from February 27 using AP stats as the poster child for U.S. incompetence at designing math syllabi)
• “Everybody’s getting paid, but Raheem still can’t read.” (from “Schooled” in New Yorker)

Full post, including comments

At a business/social gathering following Super Tuesday I heard from a variety of Massachusetts residents regarding Hillary Clinton and other politicians:

• (from a Bernie supporter) it would be nice to have a president who didn’t actually have an office at Goldman Sachs
• (from a Trump Supporter) I’m sick of working to support people who don’t work. (Her after-tax income was definitely less than value of housing, food stamps, and health insurance received by a successful Boston-area welfare family. Sadly she was past her child-bearing years and would not have been able to go down the most reliable Massachusetts road for getting cash without working.)
• Hillary and Congress will be making laws that benefit their friends in ways that I won’t even be able to understand. But I know that I’ll be paying for this.
• Ronald Reagan ruined American politics by introducing religion. I can never forgive him for not mentioning the word “AIDS” until after more than 22,000 Americans had died, including a lot of my friends. (This statement regarding Reagan may not be accurate. This article says Reagan talked AIDS in 1985 (same year that a blood test was approved for HIV) and so does this organization, which also notes that about 13,000 Americans had died to that point.)
• (from a Bernie supporter) At least Trump probably won’t try to do that much once he is in office except enjoy being President.
• If Hillary gets elected we should buy stock in Goldman Sachs and Berkshire Hathaway and other companies to which she is connected. We know that they’re going to do great for the next eight years. [See “Warren Buffett’s Nifty Tax Loophole” (Barron’s) for the complexity of Berkshire Hathaway’s relationship with the tax code.]

[Funniest statement of the evening, from a travel industry executive: “We’ve been advertising on PBS…”]

There was no affection expressed for Hillary, even among those who said that they voted for her. The kindest thing that was said that she would be more likely to get legislation passed with Congress than would Bernie Sanders be (hardly anyone was willing to admit to supporting Trump).

With support for Hillary this weak in a passionately Democrat state just one night after Super Tuesday I wonder if she will have a tough time in November. But on the other hand other recent U.S. presidents have been elected without charming everyone. Nixon, for example. George H.W.? George W?

Readers: What do you hear in your neighborhoods? Are voters excited about Hillary or just voting for her because they like other candidates even less?

Full post, including comments

The tone of this election year seems to be more feverish than in previous elections. Mitt Romney was quite calm when he said that 47 percent of Americans wouldn’t vote for him because they paid no income tax and/or received a lot of government handouts. He didn’t say that those voters were immoral. He recognized that they could legitimately perceive that it wasn’t in their interest to vote for him.

People today seem to be taking the opposite tack compared to Romney:

• Paul Krugman in the New York Times says that electing Trump will melt the planet
• “GOP must confront Trump nightmare” says the editorial staff of the Boston Globe (same folks portrayed in the movie Spotlight as not bothering for about 10 years to pursue a story about child sexual abuse in churches… but Trump is urgent!). The article concludes with “There’s only one right answer.”

Is there in fact only one right answer? Start with a voter who perceives her job being at risk due to immigration and therefore votes for Donald Trump. According to the current thinking among Democrats, she is “wrong” and/or “evil” and/or “supports fascism/racism/etc.” I haven’t heard anyone say “Well, she is differently situated than I am and therefore naturally would have different interests and vote for a different candidate.” An environmentalist friend says that Donald Trump is an evil populist and that the entire planet will be put at risk if he is elected. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, not the same kind of “populist” due to his experience in Washington. A Sanders victory will ensure that Planet Earth heals.

Some Facebookers are essentially demanding that all of their friends stop whatever they are doing to pay attention more or less full-time to the Great Cause of preventing Donald Trump from becoming a Hitler-style dictator.

I’m wondering why it wouldn’t be legitimate for a person to say that state or local laws were of more interest and that, to the extent political energy was available, he or she was concentrating attention on those laws. Let’s go through some examples.

• Consider a parent with a child who is not being challenged in a public school. That’s a 7-year-old mind going to waste for six hours per day. The federal government and the President have essentially nothing to do with what happens in this school. Would it be wrong for that parent to say “I don’t care if Trump, Bernie, or Hillary wins because I’m working on getting individual assignments for children at Johnnie’s school”?
• How about a Minnesotan who had sex with a successful married dentist and is collecting $22,596 per year in tax-free child support under Minnesota family law. The same child could yield $100,000 per year under Wisconsin law. Would it be unreasonable for the Minnesotan to say “I’m more interested in getting Minnesota to remove the cap on child support so that I can quadruple my spending power than in who occupies the White House”?
• Alfred A. Stoner needs his glaucoma meds every morning, but his state criminalizes marijuana possession. If his state law were changed so that marijuana were legal, as it is in Colorado, for example, he wouldn’t have to worry about being imprisoned. Is Mr. Stoner a bad person because he says “I am putting all of my political effort into marijuana legalization because I would rather be at home with President Trump in the White House than be in prison with Hillary Clinton in the White House”?
• Melissa Labralover wants to take her dog to a neighborhood field to run every morning and every evening with other dogs, but it is illegal to have an off-leash dog in her town and this field is covered in weeds and broken glass (due to teenagers who were forced to turn to beer after being unable to get the glaucoma medication that they required). She wants to see her town budget to clean up the field and to amend its laws so that dogs can be off-leash within the confines of the field. Is she allowed to say “My income is modest so my tax rate is low and I really don’t care what they do 3000 miles away in Washington because what would make the most difference to Rover and me is a dog park”?

Readers: In terms of things that would have a direct impact on your life or your family members’ lives, are you most interested in seeing changes at the federal, state, or local level?

Full post, including comments

From “The Golden Generation,” a New Yorker article about Chinese citizens who live in Vancouver:

Last year, the son of China’s richest man posted pictures online of his dog wearing two gold-plated Apple Watches, one on each front paw.

Who else has found a use for the Apple Watch?

Full post, including comments

One thing that I noticed during my sojourn in Vail Valley was that the ski resorts seem to have a lot of volunteer labor. Beaver Creek has greeters everywhere to answer questions, hand out tissues, hand out postcards, etc. One volunteer said that she does it for the annual pass. I asked “How often do you ski?” and she replied that she doesn’t ski at all, but likes the ride the lifts in the summer for hiking. Presumably this relationship is mutually satisfactory but a mutually satisfactory employment relationship can give rise to a profitable lawsuit.

I found Winter Park’s ad for ski patrol volunteers, for example. The volunteer must work for 17 days and pay $90. In exchange he or she receives an annual ski pass that retails for $400-600. If a “day” is 8 hours, that’s as little as $2.25 per hour in net compensation and the government did not receive Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes on this wage.

Why isn’t ski country also an employment litigator’s paradise?

[Despite state laws that absolve ski resort operators from most liability on the “you were falling down a goddamn mountain” theory, a prominent skilaw.com billboard on I-70 shows that litigation and skiing can be mixed.]

Full post, including comments

If we model voting as a social phenomenon, this image shows why Hillary Clinton wins the Massachusetts primary:

There was not a single other candidate that anyone in our town was willing to be seen supporting. (Maybe I will go down there at 5 pm with a “Jesus Loves Trump” sign and a blood pressure meter to see what happens!)

(As per usual, most of the ballot was taken up by candidates running unopposed. One interesting item is that the Democrats in Massachusetts have positions titled “State Committee Man” and “State Committee Woman” for which there is a gender ID requirement. There was not an interesting electoral contest for these positions, as each one had a single unopposed candidate. But the existence of these positions raises the question: what if a successful “State Committee Man” decides to identify as a “woman” at some point subsequent to his/her election? How are these positions meaningful in a transgender age?)

Full post, including comments

A cornerstone of the Democrats’ plan to reduce American inequality is higher tax rates. Rich people will keep working, not move taxable activities offshore and/or pursue other tax avoidance strategies, and the government’s coffers will fill up like Pharaoh’s grain warehouses during the seven fat years. Wise officials will then ladle out the cash to the deserving poor and inequality will be reduced.

Is there any alternative to this approach, I was asked at a dinner party by some rich government-connected residents of Cambridge? (they support Bernie Sanders, of course!)

My answer was that a big element of inequality in the U.S. involves real estate. Start with the government’s decision to double the population compared to the “good old equal” days of the 1950s (paying Americans to have children; encouraging immigration both legal and illegal). Add our spectacular failure in all aspects of urban planning and you get the inevitable outcome of only a handful of Americans being able to afford market-rate housing in places where anyone would actually want to live. We have added 150 million people but hardly any new cities or towns that have the features that most people desire. So you need to have a great job and/or be favored by a government ministry that hands out free housing in elite neighborhoods such as Manhattan, Cambridge, San Francisco, etc.

What if we took some of the effort and money that we currently invest in government handouts and used that to create additional attractive cities and towns? (I proposed this idea for an evil billionaire back in 2007, but the evil billionaires are obsessed with saving the rest of the planet instead.) We have a lot of land in the U.S. so there is no reason for land per se to be out of reach for a lower-middle-class American.

[Of course the standard approach to reducing inequality would be to improve public education, but Americans have rejected the Finland-style system in which only successful students can become teachers (see “Smartest Kids in the World Review”) and there doesn’t seem to be any other proven formula.]

Full post, including comments

Politicians and the media are relentless in reminding us that the U.S. is a winner-take-all society where the Top 1% or 0.1% have collected all of the money. If the top 1% are “winners” that makes the bottom 99% “losers”. “Disney Introduces Demand-Based Pricing at Theme Parks” (nytimes) is hard to square with this picture:

Disney tends to increase ticket prices once a year — recently, at well above the rate of inflation … Disney’s price increases have been modest considering the soaring demand, analysts say. During the company’s last financial quarter, which ended on Jan. 2, domestic park attendance rose 10 percent from a year earlier, setting records. Attendance in the final quarter of 2014 rose 7 percent from the same period in 2013.

Are the Disney parks packed with foreigners (Orlando Sentinel says it is only about 20 percent)? If not, how did tens of millions of people manage to afford to take a week off work, travel to Orlando, and spend at least $100 each day for each family member? (Orlando Sentinel)

Full post, including comments

As a resident of Massachusetts I am purely a spectator of the U.S. political scene. Though I will try to get down to the local school to vote for Bernie on Tuesday, our votes generally don’t count; most candidates on our ballots are running unopposed and, for the rest, the outcome is seldom in doubt.

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday and people have been in a tizzy for months over the prospect of Donald Trump as President. My Facebook feed is about 30 percent comparisons of Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.

Stupid Question of the Day: What could Trump actually do that would be so bad/dramatic?

Let’s assume that Trump isn’t going to start a nuclear war. He has too much property to protect, even if much may be mortgaged.

Now what? The President can travel around the country making fine speeches (if Obama) or blunt ones (if Trump), but the President doesn’t make laws, set tax rates, or determine the budget. Maybe Trump wants to build a 100′-high wall somewhere but if Congress doesn’t fund it then he will have to pay for the wall himself, just as you or I would.

President Trump would appoint federal judges. Is there any evidence that he would do a worse job at this than anyone else? His own sister is a Federal appeals court judge, nominated to that job in 1999 by President Clinton. Presumably Trump, like other Presidents, would delegate the grunt work of finding good candidates for various positions. Are we afraid that Trump will hire inferior advisors somehow? Why wouldn’t he just ask his sister for help with judges and similarly qualified people for help in other areas?

Barack Obama has said that he was going to do a bunch of stuff that never got done. He was going to close Gitmo. He was going to tax oil. Politifact has a longish list. In retrospect it seems that it didn’t make any difference what Obama said since Congress has the real power. What’s the practical downside of President Trump for those of us who don’t watch TV and who don’t pay close attention to what the current President says?

He’s not a candidate that I have ever considered supporting, but I would like someone to explain why does the sky fall if Donald Trump is elected?

[And, separately, what if Barack Obama were to nominate Donald Trump’s sister to the Supreme Court?]

Related:

• “What a Donald Trump presidency might actually look like” (Los Angeles Times) says that spending and government programs would be more or less unchanged.
• “The Donald and The Terminator” (WSJ) on the failure of Arnold Schwarzenegger to accomplish anything in California: “… here’s the thing about bluster. Against entrenched interests, it almost always loses. For a simple reason: The interests are entrenched because they know how to game the system. American history is thus littered with elected populists foundering in office on the presumption that their personal appeal would be enough to carry the day. That’s what happened to Mr. Schwarzenegger. He came into the governor’s mansion vowing to lower the tax burden, impose some spending restraint and revive the state’s economy. Instead, he ended up signing a huge tax increase even as the state’s deficit spending continued and the debt nearly tripled under his watch.”

Full post, including comments

Those of us with big collections of Canon EOS lenses have had to watch enviously as cameras with Sony sensors outclassed all of the Canon bodies, regardless of price. The Nikon system, anchored by Sony sensors in camera bodies such as the D800, inspired the most envy. Sony’s own systems didn’t seem that awesome, however, due to the lack of lens choices. The latest DxOMark tests, however, show that the lens options for Sony mirrorless systems are not to be sneezed at. Some of the better lenses ever tested are the Zeiss 25/2 and Zeiss 21/2.8, both designed for the Sony A7 camera. If you want an awesome 50/1.4 it seems that the Sigma 50/1.4 “Art” lens is the best mixture of optical quality and price/weight and it is available in a Sony mount (but for their DSLR cameras rather than the mirrorless? This would then require an adapter).

Even Pentax is now crushing Canon in the DSLR image quality area with its K-1 body that includes the Sony 36 MP sensor lifted from the A7.

So… Canon doesn’t make bodies with competitive image quality and most of the great new lenses are coming from third-party makers such as Sigma and Zeiss. How does this happen to a market leader?

Full post, including comments