What laptop for Senior Management?

by philg

Stop the Presses! My opinion has been asked for by another household member!

It is time for a new laptop for Senior Management. She is accustomed to Microsoft Windows and a 15″ screen. She does not like or want a touchscreen. She’ll be using it at home and in conference rooms at various pharma companies.

Surveying the laptop market I’m surprised at how little improvement there has been in price or specs in the past few years. This seems like truly a stalled industry. You have to pay about $500 minimum. You get a mechanical hard drive just like the 1957 IBM RAMAC. You get 8 GB of RAM, barely enough to ran a cleanly booted Windows 10 (welcome to Swap City!). How is this different than three years ago, for example?

Given that, despite a few trips back to Dell for hardware service and software reinstallation, my last laptop (Dell XPS 13) could never be made to sleep properly, I’m thinking that Dell shouldn’t be on the list of contenders.

The LG gram series seems interesting. Costco is selling one with 16 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD for $1300. They promise to support it for two years and take it back within 90 days if it fails the way that the Dell did. It weighs a minimal 2.4 lbs. and reviews say that the promised battery life is real (16+ hours).

Unlike Dell (and Apple?), LG does not plunge the unlucky buyer into a world of dongles. The specs include 3 legacy USB ports, one hip new USB-C port, and a HDMI output (perfect for the executive who needs to plug into a projector and doesn’t want to have to remember a dongle). Photographers will be stuck in dongle hell, however, because there is no SD card reader (only “Micro-SD”).

The LG site claims that the device has been tested for ruggedness and is stronger than its minimal weight would suggest. The only way in which this LG differs from Senior Management’s spec is in the provision of a touch screen (but she doesn’t have to use it!). And perhaps the screen resolution could be higher? But then we would say goodbye to the long battery life?

Readers: What do you think? Is there a better idea than this LG?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

by philg

“Boeing 737 Max: What went wrong?” (BBC) contains a plot showing the angle of attack data being fed to Boeing’s MCAS software. Less than one minute into the flight, the left sensor spikes to an absurd roughly 70-degree angle of attack. Given the weight of an airliner, the abruptness of the change was impossible due to inertia. But to have avoided killing everyone on board, the software would not have needed a “how fast is this changing?” capability. It would simply have needed a few extra characters in an IF statement. Had the systems engineers and programmers checked Wikipedia, for example, (or maybe even their own web site) they would have learned that “The critical or stalling angle of attack is typically around 15° – 20° for many airfoils.” Beyond 25 degrees, therefore, it is either sensor error or the plane is stalling/spinning and something more than a slow trim is going to be required.

So, even without checking the left and right AOA sensors against each other (what previous and conventional stick pusher designs have done), all of the problems on the Ethiopian flight could potentially have been avoided by changing

IF AOA > 15 THEN RUNAWAY_TRIM();

to

IF AOA > 15 AND AOA < 25 THEN RUNAWAY_TRIM();

About 10 characters of code, in other words. (See the Related links below for the rest of the flaws in the MCAS system design, which the above tweak would not have fixed.)

We fret about average humans being replaced by robots, but consider the Phoenix resident who sees that the outdoor thermometer is reading 452 degrees F on a June afternoon. Will the human say “Arizona does get hot in the summer so I’m not going to take my book outside for fear that it will burst into flames”? Or “I think I need to buy a new outdoor thermometer”?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Should government workers get paid to be presidential candidates for 2 years?

by philg

Some folks who get salaries from taxpayers have announced plans to spend the next 1.5-2 years running for President. Examples:

Reviewing the complete list of declared at least reasonably virtuous candidates, there are a bunch more folks who get paid every week for doing a job that they say they aren’t going to concentrate on for the next couple of years.

For a resident of South Bend, Indiana who wants the potholes fixed, how is it fair for that person to pay Mr. Buttigieg through 2020 while he is focused on non-local matters? How does it help us here in Massachusetts to have one of our senators going door-to-door in Iowa? Organizing potlatches in Seattle?

For residents of California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, is it fair that their Representative or Senator is running around to early primary states instead of advocating for their interests?

Being a Presidential candidate might cause a Rep or Senator to take positions that are adverse to his or her constituents. For example, the Presidential candidate who needs to win Iowa and other farm states would advocate for central planning that raises prices for agricultural products (and/or raises taxes to pay subsidies to farmers). But a Senator from MA or NJ is ostensibly representing urban consumers who are injured by such policies and would be better off in a market economy for food. Example: Elizabeth Warren seems to have changed her tune on whether the Federal government should subsidize agribusiness.

(Americans have minimal representation in Washington even when the folks they pay actually stay at their desks. The House was set up to have one Rep for every 30,000 residents (Wikipedia), but now it is 330 million divided by 435, approximately 1 Rep per 760,000. New Jersey had one senator for every 90,000 residents when the system was set up; today it is one senator for 4.5 million.)

Readers: If a campaign lasts longer than one year should candidates be forced to go on an unpaid leave of absence or resign altogether from any taxpayer-funded job?

Full post, including comments

Cheaper planes for fatter Americans

by philg

Thirty years ago, 85 percent of students and instructors could conduct training in a two-seat airplane. Today, 85 percent of students and instructors need to use a four-seat airframe. It would be inconceivable for four typical GA-interested American adults to take off within safe weight & balance limits for the typical 1950s or 1960s-designed airframe.

Cirrus responded to the changed circumstances by making the SR22, a four-seater with 1,000 lbs. more gross weight and twice the horsepower compared to a 1960s four-seater.

Piper has done something interesting. They’ve taken a seat out of their four-seater (1960 design), put in an experimental glass panel, and delivered a new IFR-capable three-seat airplane, including the fantastic Garmin GFC 500 autopilot, for $285,000 (down from more than $370,000; compare to a Cirrus SR20 at $455,000 before options). And it probably will be able to take off with three adult Americans circa 2020!

One issue: the airplane will be called the “Pilot 100”. Did the marketing staff at Piper recently come over from Dorco USA?

See this article from Plane&Pilot.

One unusual twist is using a 180-horsepower engine from Continental, now under Chinese ownership. Industry experts say that Lycoming makes a more reliable engine, especially the IO-360 Lycoming. Also that Lycoming support is far superior. Cirrus recently dropped Continental as a supplier for its lower-powered model, the SR20.

(Out of a handful of SR22s in our T hangars, the premature failure rate on the bigger Continental engines has been high. One failed catastrophically at 300 hours. Another failed at about 900 hours (supposed to last 2,200) and one month after its three-year warranty expired. Continental refused to do anything for the customer other than sell him a new engine at the standard price.)

Full post, including comments

Seasoned litigator’s point of view

by philg

One of the cases in which I am a software expert witness was recently dismissed with prejudice (it would be nice to say that this was due to my brilliant analysis of the technology, but it was actually due to fraud by the plaintiff in presenting evidence). The seasoned defense litigator who hired me (two years ago!): “This was a rare instance of justice in the [***] state court system.”

Full post, including comments

Price of uncertainty for MacKenzie Bezos: $36 billion

by philg

Had MacKenzie Bezos married and divorced Jeff Bezos in Germany, checking the “separate property” box on the marriage application, she would be getting no asset transfer, only child support that maxes out at $6,000 per child per year (see Real World Divorce‘s international chapter).

Had the divorce happened in California, she would have been entitled to 50 percent of the assets accumulated during the marriage, a total of about $72 billion.

The divorce occurred while the family courts of Washington State had jurisdiction, however, resulting in “MacKenzie Bezos’s $36 billion in Amazon stock from divorce settlement makes her world’s fourth-richest woman” (MarketWatch).

In the early articles on this subject, Washington was erroneously reported by many journalists as being a 50/50 property division state. In fact, as noted in Real World Divorce,

Are the assets split 50/50? “We’re a ‘fair and equitable’ state,” says DeVallance. “It is not a 50/50 state. The property division can be a disproportionate.” Does the fact that Washington State is a “community property” jurisdiction mean that assets acquired before the marriage remain with each party? “No,” explains DeVallance. “All property is before the court, including separate property, though it is somewhat rare to invade separate property.”

In other words, it is uncertain. A judge might have decided to give Mrs. Bezos more than 50 percent of the property, on the grounds that she hadn’t worked since 1997 and therefore wouldn’t be as easily able as Mr. Bezos to earn more money. Or a judge might have decided that $1 billion was the maximum profit that someone should be able to obtain from being a stay-at-home spouse. There wouldn’t have been any precedent for these numbers.

It would appear that a certain $36 billion was preferred by Mrs. Bezos to the possibility of obtaining $72 billion or more, but with a small risk of getting much less than $36 billion. Thus, she settled, and, assuming that she was most likely to come away with $72 billion, we can say that the price of the uncertainty that the Washington State Legislature built into the family law system was $36 billion.

Generally I think it is more important for ordinary people to learn about more ordinary applications of family law, but the MacKenzie Bezos story is interesting as an illustration of the strange characteristic of U.S. family law. Marriage is primarily a financial partnership in the eyes of the law and yet, in most states, the value of an individual’s stake in the partnership is unknown and unknowable without spending potentially all of the partnership value on years of litigation. It is kind the opposite of all other American business partnerships where the value is supposed to be readily ascertained at any time and litigation is a rare last resort if something has gone badly wrong.

Full post, including comments

Minimal number of approved drugs; fewer approved each year

by philg

Some numbers that I heard at Harvard Medical School:

  • About 1500 compounds that are currently approved as patented or generic drugs.
  • About 500 in clinical trials.
  • About 10 approved every year and declining.

Declining? With half of the new glass towers in Boston and Cambridge packed with biologists and chemists? “It’s getting tougher to approve new drugs because they have to be safe, be effective, and be somehow better for an average population of patients than current drugs,” said my source. “Don’t get me started on the FDA. These criteria are probably too strict. A compound that has bad side effects for one person might affect another person very differently. So it would be good to have more options, especially for those with unusual genetics.”

Full post, including comments

How is it reasonable to cut aid to Central America because they won’t stop emigration?

by philg

“Dismay after Trump moves to cut aid to Central America” (BBC):

Mr Trump ordered the suspension of aid payments to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to push their governments to stop migration into the US.

If we let anyone who sets foot on U.S. soil enter the asylum process, how is it El Salvador’s fault that people leave to take advantage of what is likely to be a lifetime of means-tested housing, health care, and food welfare?

What do we want them to do? Build a wall to keep their own citizens in? So that a future Reagan-like U.S. president can implore them to tear the wall down?

The article says

Aid advocates argue that the best way to stem migration from the region is to stimulate economic development

But as noted in https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/03/13/if-liberals-wont-enforce-borders-fascists-will/, it may well be that as the source countries get wealthier there be more asylum-seekers. From the quoted Atlantic article:

immigration is accelerating so rapidly in the 21st century less because of pervading misery than because life on our planet is improving for so many people. It costs money to move—and more and more families can afford the investment to send a relative northward.

Maybe we should cut off foreign aid because it is generally harmful to foreigners, but I don’t see how it makes sense to cut off aid to countries whose citizens are smart enough to show up in the U.S. for the unlimited lifetime welfare buffet.

Is it truly the case that the Land of Freedom (TM) is asking Central American countries to imprison their own citizens?

Full post, including comments

Men are not bigger than women; richer Americans are not thinner

by philg

Playing around with R (bleah) and NHANES data (a comprehensive survey of American health and socioeconomic situation; see also this exploration tool at Harvard Medical School), I got a few surprises…

American women actually have a slightly higher average BMI than men. Muscles are supposedly heavier than fat and men are supposedly more muscular, right? This theory is not supported by data. Given two random adults of the same height, the woman will actually be heavier.

One of our fellow residents (might not be a citizen) rang up a BMI of 120(!). Plenty of company in the 50-60 range…

There is almost no correlation between income and BMI. However, the correlation is in an unexpected direction. An increase in income of 6X seems to result in an increase in BMI of about 1. The rich are not thinner. (NHANES may not be a good sample for the truly rich).

Full post, including comments