A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months…
I strolled down to the MIT Sailing Pavilion to get a few late afternoon photos and discovered that MIT now requires students to wear helmets:
(wind at nearby Logan airport was reported at 6 knots)
Separately, what about the Hovding airbag helmet for bicycling? Annoying to have to charge it every 10 hours but it seems like a better idea than conventional bike helmets.
Full post, including commentsSome of my women friends on Facebook have been promoting “Michelle Obama Dropped Some Wisdom Every Young Girl Should Hear,” a story in which America’s First Lady gives the following advice:
If I had worried about who liked me and who thought I was cute when I was your age, I wouldn’t be married to the president of the United States today.
Is there a way to read this other than “Getting an education was primarily important because it enabled me to marry a richer and more powerful husband”? And, if not, why are women who style themselves as feminists (a version of feminism that is rather evolved from the 1970s “equality feminism” because many of those who liked this on Facebook have themselves chosen to marry high-income men and withdraw from the workforce) enthusiastic about this statement?
Related:
Here’s an obituary from my suburb’s local newspaper: Peggy Schmertzler. I think that, in one life, it shows the fragmentation of family that has occurred in the U.S. due to a variety of technical and social forces.
The subject was born in 1931 and grew up in Baltimore. She moved to Boston to attend college and settled in a suburb with her lawyer-husband, thus severing her daily ties with her parents and any extended family in Baltimore.
Following a divorce lawsuit (the obit doesn’t say who sued whom, but statistically it is generally the woman who decides to sue (some Massachusetts data)), she moved to Cambridge, thus severing her daily ties with her husband and, presumably, former neighbors.
Her children then scattered to New Zealand, California, and a Boston suburb, thus severing their daily ties to each other and, for the non-Boston-area kids, eliminating the possibility of grandchildren having daily ties with this grandmother.
I’ve written before about how I think one reason that Mexicans might be happier than Americans, adjusted for income, is the central nature of Mexico. People either stay in their hometowns or move to Mexico City, but they don’t generally keep moving after that.
[Separately, the obituary shows how well-educated Americans are pulled into low-productivity-growth non-profit activities. Ms. Schmertzler “worked for the next 15 years in the nonprofit sector” and put 26 years of effort and time into “the Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard.” (The GDP per capita of China grew from less than $2,000 per person to more than $8,000 per person during the same time period.)]
Full post, including comments“More grads choose industry over PhDs: Survey data reveal decade-long trend away from graduate school” is a story from MIT’s student newspaper.
I ran into a faculty member who is doing research for the federal government on where to fund PhDs. “We didn’t used to have postdocs in engineering,” he said. “But now MIT has more than one postdoc per faculty member. There are nowhere near enough assistant professorships for all of the PhDs that we are generating. So we’re exploiting them by paying them $50,000 per year.” (Paying a market-clearing wage is apparently now generally accepted as “exploitation.”)
Related:
Full post, including comments“U.S. Will Accept More Refugees as Crisis Grows” (nytimes) says ” The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a decline in the labor force participation rate from 66 percent in 2009 to 62.5 percent today (chart). In other words, every year a smaller percentage of adult Americans are working.
Minimum wages are rising all over the country.
There are a variety of legal attacks on hiring people as contractors (potentially working out to below minimum wage) rather than as W-2 employees.
What will immigrants who are not selected for English fluency, education, job skills, or youth do once they arrive? If they are legal immigrants, especially if they have children, they will presumably eventually be eligible for the full range of welfare benefits, e.g., a taxpayer-funded house, taxpayer-funded health care, taxpayer-funded food, etc. According to this page, immigrants both legal and illegal collected welfare at a 57-percent rate back in 2009 (compared to 39 percent for native-born households with children; soon the majority of us will be dependents of the Great Father in Washington!). The same page, however, says that 95 percent of immigrant households in 2009 had at least one worker.
The U.S. has been successful at absorbing immigrants, but our largest waves of immigration (as a percentage of the population) were before the 1938 introduction of a minimum wage and many decades before we built a comprehensive welfare state (e.g., Medicaid was created in 1965).
What do readers think? Where will these new Americans fit into the labor force? Who will want to pay them $15/hour plus benefits?
Full post, including commentsAtlantic magazine’s October 2015 issue carries “Are Bosses Necessary?” One of America’s more useful business school professors is quoted:
What’s enabling this shift [to Zappos-style holacracy], argues Thomas Malone, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, is simple: falling information costs. In his 2004 book, The Future of Work, Malone broke the history of organizations into three stages. In stage one, information is expensive to convey, so most decisions are made face-to-face in necessarily small firms. As communication costs begin to fall, Malone explained to me, we reach stage two, in which “it becomes economically feasible to send information to a single, central place for decisions to be made.” That is, the large, centralized hierarchy becomes possible. Then comes stage three: “As communication costs continue to fall, there comes a time when it’s economically feasible to bring information to all points, so in some sense, everyone can know everything.” In this third stage, the benefits of bigness can persist, but its traditional handmaiden, hierarchy, doesn’t have to. (Indeed, when the volume of information grows large enough, trying to direct its flow upward for evaluation can slow everything down.)
[See Malone’s “Semi-Structured Messages” paper from 1986.]
I want to push one of my old ideas… combine Edward Tufte’s sparklines (see explanation in this 2006 posting) with a 1200 dpi 11×17 color laserprinter. Take every number that matters to an organization and print it out every day on an 11×17 sheet of paper that is given to every employee. For a web site it might be “new registrations yesterday” printed in green if it went up from the moving average of the previous week, printed in red if it went down. Next to the number would be a Tufte sparkline to put the number into context. The next line down could be “500 Server Errors,” followed by “Average pages per session,” etc.
What do readers who work in companies with at least 50 employees think? Would it be helpful to arrive at work and find an 11×17 sheet of paper across your keyboard with perhaps 150 metrics of the company’s performance?
Full post, including commentsI recently attended a deposition of an expert witness in a patent lawsuit. The depo was in a pleasant Southern university town where the median price of a detached house is $250,000.
In addition to be transcribed by an in-person court reporter, the deposition was being videotaped. I learned that the videographer’s fee was $200 for the first hour and $100 for each subsequent hour. A federal court deposition is typically 7 hours on the record and about 10 hours of total time including breaks. Thus the videography fee would be $1,100 for the day.
This is a job that requires no specific education (and certainly not a college degree). The videographer was using the following capital equipment:
I inquired and learned that, unlike a wedding photographer, the guy did not bring a backup camera to the job. If the camera had failed he said that he would “go to a store and buy a new camera.” Thus the total cost to get into this business would be under $1,000.
The actual work done by this videographer occupied about 1.5 hours during the 10-hour period. He had to set the camera on the tripod, mic up two lawyers and the witness, test and set levels on the mixer, change tapes four times, occasionally make an announcement, and pack up the gear. We were blessed with 50 Mbps symmetric WiFi in the hotel conference room (part of the university). He had brought a tablet computer and keyboard and was surfing the Web for the remaining 8.5 hours (while monitoring audio quality through the headphones and occasionally glancing at the video monitor on the camcorder).
The downside of the work is that it can be tough to be a solo practitioner. “Lawyers are lazy so they just want to be able to call one number and have someone show up,” said an attorney. “Maybe you could do it in a big city or Silicon Valley.” Thus it is typical for a middleman(woman) to take a cut. On the other hand, if the other side wants a copy of the videos it might be exactly the same price, i.e., another $1,100. And if there is a third party involved in the case? Another $1,100.
Related:
I recently visited Virginia Tech (note how Google shows Nidal Malik Hasan as #1 among the school’s “notable alumni,” a good reason to invest in PR…).
The school impresses the visitor with its NFL-grade football stadium, Four Seasons-grade hotel and conference center, and stone buildings (but the architecture school is a hideous concrete eyesore! (photos)). Due to the handsome stone construction, the school has some of the feel of Princeton, generally admired as one of America’s nicest college campuses. With 31,000 students Virginia Tech needs to be physically larger than Princeton, with 8,000 students. However, the physical inflation is more dramatic than the student ratio.
My theory is that Virginia Tech is spread out to a large extent because of the need to provide massive surface parking lots in front of most buildings, a requirement dictated by (a) the 100-year period of private ownership of non-self-driving cars, and (b) the expense of digging underground lots. It is tough to imagine casual collaboration among departments at Virginia Tech due to the long walks from subcampus to subcampus. Because the campus isn’t all that walkable, there is a huge amount of car traffic even after 9 pm on weekdays.
I’m wondering if once the self-driving (and shared) car (or RV) is here we will regret having built so many spread-out campuses to accommodate what turned out to be a relatively small fraction of the period of European settlement of the Americas.
Full post, including commentshttp://www.teslamotors.com/modelx will shortly show the launch of the new electric SUV (not “pavement-melting SUV,” which had become almost a Homeric epithet). Fully loaded this is a $132,000 car. If you pay federal income tax you will be contributing to a $7,500 subsidy for each person (a.k.a. “rich bastard”) who buys one. It seems like a marvelous engineering achievement so… who else is excited to be offered the opportunity to work extra hours every year in order to help rich people buy this new toy?
And when do we get to subsidize an all-electric Rolls-Royce?
[Disclosure: A rich friend of mine has one of these on order and I am looking forward to riding in his.]
Full post, including commentsPaul McHugh, a retired psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins, summarizes the state of modern psychiatry in a review of Shrinks, a book that tries to do the same thing. A friend whose PhD is in experimental psychology (Stanford) sometimes irritates therapists by asking “How do you do engineering when there is no physics?” McHugh makes the same point:
No formative principle or principles link the function of the brain to mental disorders, and until such is discerned, psychiatry will remain at the naming and describing level…
The end of the beginning for cardiology came when William Harvey wrote De Motu Cordis in 1628. Therein he described how the heart acted as a pump, how the blood circulated, and how the experimental method could advance human physiology. Everything in cardiology—from understanding a patient’s symptoms to discovering mechanism-based medications, right on to transplanting hearts today—rests on that foundation.
Psychiatry has no Harvey. And if DSM-5 is its “Bible,” then the “end of the beginning” for psychiatry looks decades away.
Why is psychotherapy so popular? A Harvard PhD psychologist said that “sociopaths and psychopaths love to go to therapists because part of the standard process is unconditional positive regard. They’re not going to get that from anyone whom they talk to and aren’t paying.”
What do readers think? What kinds of science would we need to enable therapists to be reliably effective? And where will that science come from? Neuropsychology? Or perhaps from the more heavily funded Artificial Intelligence folks? Are we talking about 10 years or 100 years before we see significant progress?
Separately, what success stories for psychotherapy do readers have to relate? Does anyone have personal experience with someone who went to therapy and came out as a substantially improved individual? (if drugs, such as Prozac, were involved, please limit your answer to situations in which you’ve had at least five years to observe the results (to reduce distortions from the placebo effect))
Full post, including comments