Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

I have an iPhone 6 Plus, which I bought for the camera and because it does not run Samsung’s Contacts app (a.k.a. “raise your blood pressure 20 points app”). Supposedly this phone has a beautiful exterior and is very thin, but I haven’t experienced either of those properties because I put the phone into a protective case shortly after purchase. Now it is thick, fairly durable, and looks nothing like it did when it left the factory in China (or when it’s taxable patented soul left an offshore trust in the Netherlands).

Android users can now enjoy an abuse-proof phone (WSJ on the Droid Turbo 2). How about Apple making a phone for the real world as well? Here’s what I want:

• rubberized exterior so that a toddler can throw it in a 5′ arc and have it land undamaged on a hardwood floor
• thick enough to accommodate a 24-hour battery
• use the thickness to accommodate a larger lens to cover a physically larger camera sensor (maybe 1/1.7″)
• same (awesome) Apple camera software
• (optional but it would be amazing) waterproof down to 10′ for underwater photos

Apple could then have three models for 2016: iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 7 Tough. (Or maybe “iPhone 7 Photographer’s Edition” since the most dramatic difference would be in image quality)

Full post, including comments

One of the newer instructors at East Coast Aero Club asked me to fly with his student before signing the guy off for solo.

Here’s what I told the CFI and student pilot during the debrief…

Preflight: On a restart, look for leaks, snapped belts, tight fuel caps, and, if the helicopter was flown for many hours previously, oil level. Never skimp on the walk-around from a 10′ distance all around the helicopter. That’s where you will find inspection doors open, things attached to the skids, etc.

Pre-lift: Never skimp on the top-to-bottom flow check. Very few helicopters have been wrecked because of a subtle problem missed during a preflight mechanical inspection. Many have been crashed because something wasn’t set right and the pilot tried to fix the problem when in a hover or in the air.

Air taxi: The takeoff into an air taxi is the same as a takeoff to fly to New York. Hover power, nudge forward to 45 knots while holding the ship level, then reduce power to 17″ once reaching about 70′ above the ground. Keep the airspeed to 40-50 knots and the altitude 70-100′. That’s enough energy to do a reasonable autorotation while being slow enough to see and avoid obstacles such as trees and antennae and high enough to clear most obstacles at our airport.

Flying patterns: Remember that the inputs are attitude and power. Everything else on the gauges is an output. Don’t worry about the outputs. Concentrate on holding the correct inputs. (On a climb-out where the student had selected a 30-knot attitude I asked “Is this too high a pitch or too low?” and he correctly answered “too high” but wasn’t doing much about it because he was waiting to see what the airspeed indicator would do (it was showing 40 knots with a down trend).) Try to do at least one third of your practice flying with every instrument except the manifold pressure [power gauge] covered. You need to develop a mental catalog of the correct attitudes and power settings for every flight condition. (on our flight the student pilot flew a much better pattern with everything covered)

Shutting down: Watch the RPM gauge as you smoothly and slowly reduce speed from 100%. Then once you are sure that the throttle is moving in the correct direction you can move it a little faster down to 68% for the cool-down.

Overall: Download the Garmin 400/420/430W simulator and try to get it running on your Windows machine (used to be finicky about the graphics card, etc.).  Download the Garmin 430W manual as a PDF and learn about all of the buttons, even the ones that are just for IFR flying. You want to make sure that you can quickly get out of any screen or situation with the Garmin confidently and quickly. Plenty of airplanes have been crashed by pilots monkeying with a GPS that they didn’t quite understand.

Try to fly that first solo with 50 or 100 lbs. of weight on the instructor’s side. Otherwise the change in hover attitude can be disconcerting. (Even after 1000+ R44 hours it feels strange to fly the machine solo; I almost want to look back to see if someone is hanging/tugging on the heels of the skids.)

Related:

• a poster from the local elementary school hallway:

Full post, including comments

A friend of Facebook cited this New Yorker magazine article: “St. Paul’s School and a New Definition of Rape,” by a professor at Harvard Law School. My friend’s intro: “A thoughtful piece, as always by Jeannie Suk. Taking her last paragraph especially to heart.” And, indeed, the piece is mostly about feelings that one might experience “in the heart.” But criminal justice is one of the largest industries in the United States and therefore people commenting on this issue may be influenced by their wallets. Judges get paychecks, lawyers get paychecks, prison workers get paychecks (larger than Harvard graduates in some states), officials and legislators get paychecks. Different definitions of “rape” may have a significant economic effect on the revenue for this industry because either a larger or smaller percentage of human activities will become potential sources of business. And of course there are oftentimes parallel civil lawsuits when there is an accusation of rape (see Missoula), giving yet more lawyers and judges an economic stake in how many human activities can be classified as “rape.”

Of course, economics may not be the only motivation for people in this debate but why assume that it is entirely irrelevant? Why assume that people in this industry would be just as happy not to be paid as to be paid?

Related: “The Lessons of Stanford’s Sex-Assault-Case Reversal,” a New York Times story on the administrative and legal processes following a year-long relationship between two over-18-year-olds who met (but did not have sex) on the Stanford campus. In a society where we worry about how it will be possible to fund college educations for young people from middle class families, there is no discussion about the resources spent paying university officials and attorneys to argue about sex between these two young people.

Also Related: A TED talk about divorce and its impact on children that was the subject of an email discussion. The speaker is a professor at UC Santa Barbara. Here were some comments:

• “Parents’ conflict is more important than divorce per se” — doesn’t really make sense to consider these things independently. Divorce law often gives people good financial reasons to create conflict (e.g., to cement sole custody and the tax-free river of cash that goes with it). So the two cannot be separated.”
• The whole talk has an enormous blindspot. She is in a state where a woman can go to a bar, have sex with a tipsy patron, and earn more money, after tax, than she gets paid by UCSB. Or where a person can marry three people in succession, stay with each one for 5-10 years, and end up collecting a share of the earnings of three other adults simultaneously. But there is no discussion of financial incentives and their effect on behavior.
• The talk is irrelevant because the present and future of family court action is between biological parents who were never married. The U.S. doesn’t have “children of divorce”; it has “children of people who were never married”.
• To look at an activity that generates $100 billion/year in cashflow and ignore the cashflow makes the analysis incomplete.

 

Full post, including comments

Flying the Feathered Edge is an inspiring film about one of the world’s greatest pilots, Bob Hoover. There are a bunch of screenings in various cities on November 11. A group of (mostly) MIT-affiliated pilots watched this at a friend’s house last month on Blu-ray. What amazed us the most is that Hoover would fly high-performance fighter jets wearing a business suit. What’s also impressive, of course, is the amount of risk that a World War II combat pilot or an early Jet Age test pilot had to become comfortable with.

Full post, including comments

Typically the boring world of software isn’t a subject for Mother Jones, but electronic medical records somehow made the cut: “Epic Fail” talks about how six years and billions of dollars wasn’t enough to put medical data into a computerized database in a useful form. (Compare to the technological progress in the U.S. during the four years of World War II!)

[If Sheryl Sandberg and/or anyone from the New York Times had contributed, presumably the article would have pointed out that Judith Faulkner, the founder of Epic who has made almost $3 billion personally by selling American taxpayers software based on 50-year-old DBMS technology, could have been way richer if she had been a guy.]

What’s the return on our $35 billion investment as a society? “Doctors are investing the time to input data, but their offices are still having to fax and mail records like they did a decade ago.”

[Personally, I don’t think that it is fair to blame Epic that we chose to implement electronic medical records in the dumbest way possible. Nor is it Epic’s fault that there isn’t as much value in combining multiple individuals’ records in a single DBMS as there would be to combining those individuals’ banking records. I just think it is interesting that software is now important enough to be written about in a magazine that is about the “urgent issues of the day.”]

Full post, including comments

A rich friend of mine invited me to an event for rich bastards at a 10,000 square foot house here in the Boston suburbs (complete with bowling alley in the basement). The sponsors were Northern Trust and Netjets. The speaker was David McCullough, author of one of my favorite books, The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914, as well as a book about the Wright Brothers (reviewed here).

McCullough put the Wright Brothers book in context. He conceived it as part of a trilogy about the bridge, the canal, and the airplane. These were, in his words, all achievements thought to be impossible and all accomplished by Americans in a uniquely optimistic period between the Civil War and World War I.

McCullough says that he purposely picks topics about which he knows little because learning the history and the technical concepts is an important motivator for him. Reflecting on this trilogy he said that he has become fascinated by the role that adversity plays in developing character and accomplishment: “A lot of history is a lesson in how to cope with failure.” McCullough decried the default emphasis on success stories and pointed out that the Wright Brothers failed countless times before finally succeeding. “You need some adversity to succeed just as birds need a headwind to soar.”

McCullough attributed the success of the Wright Brothers to their home environment, particularly their father encouraging them to read and inquire, effectively giving them an at-home liberal arts education. He also pointed out that Dayton, Ohio at the time had more patents per capita than any other city in the U.S. McCullough said that it was important to study “values learned around the kitchen table” and how that influenced achievement. He said that if could pick just one of the four Wrights to interview (Orville, Wilbur, sister Katharine, or father Milton) it would be the father.

It was an interesting talk, though I wonder how applicable McCullough’s thoughts are to present-day American society. McCullough has been married for 61 years and is touch with all five of his children and 19 grandchildren. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012” (census.gov) shows an increasing percentage of American children grow up in single-parent households (see Real World Divorce for how, in a typical state, it is twice as lucrative to have three children with three different co-parents than to have three children with one co-parent). A Wright Brothers childhood, growing up in a household with two biological parents in a neighborhood where all of the other households with children also contained two biological parents (excepting in cases where a parent had died (less upsetting to a child than a divorce)), is no longer available at any price anywhere in the U.S.

Full post, including comments

Department of What We Say versus What They Hear:

I was chatting with a gender studies teacher. Students were assigned to read various documents regarding the difficulties facing women in the American workforce (certainly in China and Korea women are much more likely to reach the CEO position). One of the assigned works was Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg (Gender, Power, Leadership and the Workplace is an example class that requires students to read Lean In).

The teacher explained that she expected students to question the status quo, become angry about the unfairness of being paid less than men, push for political change, and help their sisters in the office. After digesting these materials, however, one young woman asked “Wouldn’t it make the most sense then for me to get married and let my husband support me?”

[Related: About 15 years ago, at the height of what seemed like the largest possible Wall Street bubble, a female Harvard undergraduate mentioned at a party that “I used to want to be an investment banker. Then I realized that I could simply marry an investment banker.”]

Related:

• “Child Support Litigation without a Marriage” (ways of tapping into a worker’s income without being married or even having children)

Full post, including comments

Getting out of the house with two children under age 2 at home is a similar challenge to escaping from another planet. Thus of course the only appropriate movie to see during our afternoon of freedom was The Martian. The filmmakers seemed to have gone to some trouble to achieve technical accuracy, yet the demographics of NASA were very different from the reality disclosed by this Popular Mechanics article:  “less than 20 percent of NASA’s employees are under the age of 40.” Virtually everyone in the movie, including folks with desk jobs in Mission Control, seemed to be young and good-looking.

Readers: Why is it commercially unbearable for an older person doing a tech job to appear on-screen, even in a minor or background/non-speaking role?

Full post, including comments

“The Populist Prophet” is a New Yorker puff piece on Bernie Sanders. There are some interesting nuggets, however.

Sanders’s father was a Polish Jew who, at the age of seventeen, came to America shortly after his brother, and struggled through the Depression in Brooklyn. By the time Sanders was born, in 1941, his father was working as a paint salesman. Sanders had an older brother, Larry, and their mother stayed home, like most of the women in their lower-middle-class corner of Flatbush. … “There was tension about money,” Sanders said of his family. They lived in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment, and his mother pined for a house. “It wasn’t a question of putting food on the table. It was a question of arguing about whether you buy this or whether you buy that. You know, families do this. I remember a great argument about drapes—whether we could afford them … ”

I spoke with a few of Sanders’s contemporaries who had grown up in the same neighborhood, and their memories were rosier: they recalled kids playing stickball on safe, familiar streets until their parents called them home for dinner.

In other words, there was just one wage earner in the household. This person was an immigrant. The family was receiving one of the few forms of government handout available at the time, an apartment at below-market rent. But at least one member of the family felt that a recent immigrant should be entitled to own a house.

Sanders’s childhood thus involved the same conflict that Americans face today. A large amount of the measured inequality of income in the U.S. stems from the large number of immigrants and children of immigrants among the general population (chart). People who didn’t grow up here, don’t speak English, and weren’t educated in a developed country tend not to be highly valued by employers. If someone freshly arrived cannot get a middle-class American lifestyle from the market, to what extent should taxpayers step in and provide that person with a comfortable house, food, health care in the world’s least efficient system, etc.? Everyone seems to agree that a legal resident of the U.S. gets the basics for free (thus making them pretty rich by global standards), but we argue, as apparently did Sanders’s parents, about whether or not it is fair for some families (typically native-born) to have way more than the basics.

A person’s position on this issue would seem to drive a lot of the political debate in the 2016 election. If you want to level the playing field so that a freshly arrived immigrant is at parity with a native-born citizen you would advocate for a 100-percent estate tax rate. You might also advocate for higher tax rates for those with high incomes (since it is rare for an immigrant to achieve a very high income).

[Separately, one of my most liberal friends in Cambridge supports virtually every redistributive idea put forth by Democrats. She has essentially never worked and will soon reach normal retirement age, thus there is no personal cost to her in advocating for higher income tax rates. However, she stands to inherit what a lot of people would consider to be a huge amount of money from her father, a self-made founder and manager of a small engineering and manufacturing business. As it happens, she opposes estate taxes and agrees with George W. Bush that money on which income tax has already been paid should not be taxed a second time when the earner dies (i.e., she wants an estate tax rate of 0 percent).]

 

Full post, including comments

A Facebook friend was enthusing about Bernie Sanders and arguing for “direct wealth transfer” to compensate Americans whose wages are stagnant and/or who lose jobs to robots.

I’m wondering if that isn’t already built into the U.S. system. Consider the labor force participation rate (chart), falling steadily since 2009. People who don’t work are eligible for subsidized and/or free housing, food stamps, free health care, a variety of free services for their children, and a free mobile phone (see the Redistribution Recession review). All of these are paid for primarily by high-income Americans because those are the people who pay the most in taxes (if not at as high a rate as Bernie Sanders would like to see collected).

So aren’t we already set up for increasing wealth transfer? The recipients of these transfers receive services, of course, rather than cash, but the function is the same.

Full post, including comments