Something to think about after today's Grey Cup: Let's say you're on a football team. And let's say that a player on your team just made an outstanding play to score the winning touchdown, but it was called back because another player was flagged. Then you're walking along the sidelines - trying to find the orange Gatorade or something - and you see one of those two players. What would you do?
You might be angry, but we'll assume your team has a real sense of togetherness so you want to be supportive. You might say a kind word. You might urge them on to make up for it on the next play. You might silently pat them on the back. I think that would be okay; from what I see of football culture, a pat on the rear wouldn't be appropriate at that time.
But truth be told, I think most of us would just try to avoid eye contact. That's partly because we believe letting them be is the best thing at that point, and mostly because we don't know what to say. But there's one thing I'm sure we would not do: Sit down next to the player, and just stare at him.
But that's what the view ends up doing, essentially. The TV coverage always loves to zero in on the player who's just had the heartbreak. Even though that's the last thing any of us would choose to do at that point. Yes, it's not quite the same thing since we're not really there, but it still feels awkward. I'm on the other side of the camera and thousands of miles away, and I still don't feel right concentrating on the guys who just want to hide at this point. I'd rather see the joy of the winning team, even though I was cheering against them.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Friday, November 28, 2014
Seen One, Seen A Mall
Today was Black Friday. No, I didn't buy anything. It wasn't a matter of principle, I just didn't need anything, and the advertised prices at Canadian Black Friday sales just didn't seem trample-worthy to me. Apparently the concept is spreading to other countries too. The British started getting into fights over limited quantities in stores today too. That didn't seem to happen here: I saw a sensationalist news items about consumers camped-out in line waiting for stores to open, but it ended with them all walking calmly into the store without incident. It was the most Canadian thing I've seen in a long time.
As you can see, I did take note of the news today in a fiendish desire to see the annual customer stampede stories. But ultimately they were disappointing. Sure, we got to see people yelling at each other, fighting for flashy cardboard rectangles. But it didn't satisfy even my guilty pleasure of marvelling at crazy behaviour. It's just the same thing over and over, in each city, year after year. I'm sure that in previous years, I learned that lesson about how disappointing it is. But I forgot over the intervening year. Ironically, that's probably why the shoppers keep fighting for bargains every year.
As you can see, I did take note of the news today in a fiendish desire to see the annual customer stampede stories. But ultimately they were disappointing. Sure, we got to see people yelling at each other, fighting for flashy cardboard rectangles. But it didn't satisfy even my guilty pleasure of marvelling at crazy behaviour. It's just the same thing over and over, in each city, year after year. I'm sure that in previous years, I learned that lesson about how disappointing it is. But I forgot over the intervening year. Ironically, that's probably why the shoppers keep fighting for bargains every year.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Google Divided By 2
Officials of the European Union has suggested that Google should be broken up for competition reasons.
Personally, I don't see the reason for it. I am okay with the idea of government limiting business, but that's if there's cause for it. With Google, that cause isn't there.
I was in favour of the U.S. Justice department's attempt to break up Microsoft in the nineties; in that case, they were clearly using their monopoly to eliminate competitors.
Google has made some clumsy attempts to use their position in one area to gain an advantage in another. The Google search feature on Android phones is a good example. But I think they're a few reasons this is different from Microsoft's situation.
For one thing, it's doubtful that Android has really helped Google's search business. After all, Microsoft's near-monopoly in PC operating systems hasn't helped Bing dent Google's hold on the market. Google would probably still lead in mobile search even without Android. After all, it's not hard to switch.
And that's another thing that's changed: it's easy to switch. I remember during the Microsoft case, some pro-business pundit ridiculing the idea that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows would cut use of Netscape. She characterized the government as treating the public as children, too stupid to download the competing browser if they wanted it. I disagreed with that; for one thing, in those days downloading software was a multi-hour proposition. Free vs. two-hour download was hardly even footing.
But today, switching software is easy and fast. People are a lot more comfortable with technology, and it's hard to herd people into decisions, no matter how much of their electronics you control. I'm not saying it's impossible - there may come a time when it makes sense for one of the super-powerful tech companies to be broken up. But that's far less likely now, and the day just hasn't arrived for Google.
Once again, European lawmakers are choosing their battles awfully: add with the "right to be forgotten" ruling, they're going to great lengths to solve problems we don't have. Is sad given the huge number of tech problems we do have, and could use help from a powerful trans-national body to solve:
Personally, I don't see the reason for it. I am okay with the idea of government limiting business, but that's if there's cause for it. With Google, that cause isn't there.
I was in favour of the U.S. Justice department's attempt to break up Microsoft in the nineties; in that case, they were clearly using their monopoly to eliminate competitors.
Google has made some clumsy attempts to use their position in one area to gain an advantage in another. The Google search feature on Android phones is a good example. But I think they're a few reasons this is different from Microsoft's situation.
For one thing, it's doubtful that Android has really helped Google's search business. After all, Microsoft's near-monopoly in PC operating systems hasn't helped Bing dent Google's hold on the market. Google would probably still lead in mobile search even without Android. After all, it's not hard to switch.
And that's another thing that's changed: it's easy to switch. I remember during the Microsoft case, some pro-business pundit ridiculing the idea that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows would cut use of Netscape. She characterized the government as treating the public as children, too stupid to download the competing browser if they wanted it. I disagreed with that; for one thing, in those days downloading software was a multi-hour proposition. Free vs. two-hour download was hardly even footing.
But today, switching software is easy and fast. People are a lot more comfortable with technology, and it's hard to herd people into decisions, no matter how much of their electronics you control. I'm not saying it's impossible - there may come a time when it makes sense for one of the super-powerful tech companies to be broken up. But that's far less likely now, and the day just hasn't arrived for Google.
Once again, European lawmakers are choosing their battles awfully: add with the "right to be forgotten" ruling, they're going to great lengths to solve problems we don't have. Is sad given the huge number of tech problems we do have, and could use help from a powerful trans-national body to solve:
- Privacy (from both government and business)
- Identity theft
- Bullying and threats
- Spam & phishing
- Spyware
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Any Given Friday
Black Friday is coming up. Is it just me, or has this year's edition reached a new level of cultural impact. It's like in the past, it was just some silly thing that other people do, which you can laugh at from afar. But now it's harder to ignore. All businesses are getting involved, it's starting to overflow into Thanksgiving day itself, and it's becoming the universal start of the Christmas shopping season.
Of course, here in Canada it's just an ordinary Friday. But the effects are starting to overflow here too, since Canadian retailers are forced to have sales to stop people from heading over the boarder for bargains. It's a pity we didn't coordinate things so that we would have our own Black Tuesday on the day after Canadian Thanksgiving. But instead, the sales join afternoon football as a benefit we get to enjoy as a spillover from American Thanksgiving.
And that brings up the weird thing about Black Friday: how arbitrary it is. There's no reason why people should all want to go shopping on the same day, other than the foibles of the calendar giving most Americans a Friday off with nothing to do about a month before Christmas. But that arbitrary swelling of the number of shoppers kicks competition into overdrive, and we reap the benefits of concentrated Capitalism as prices drop.
My point is, there's no reason we couldn't do this any other time of year. If we could all make an agreement that we're all concentrate our shopping on the same day. Say, pick the last Friday in each month; it would be a make-or-break day for retailers, who would have to compete by having big sales. Okay, it would be inconvenient to camp out in front of stores in the early morning and then fight your way into the store every month instead of just once a year. But the point is: low prices.
Of course, here in Canada it's just an ordinary Friday. But the effects are starting to overflow here too, since Canadian retailers are forced to have sales to stop people from heading over the boarder for bargains. It's a pity we didn't coordinate things so that we would have our own Black Tuesday on the day after Canadian Thanksgiving. But instead, the sales join afternoon football as a benefit we get to enjoy as a spillover from American Thanksgiving.
And that brings up the weird thing about Black Friday: how arbitrary it is. There's no reason why people should all want to go shopping on the same day, other than the foibles of the calendar giving most Americans a Friday off with nothing to do about a month before Christmas. But that arbitrary swelling of the number of shoppers kicks competition into overdrive, and we reap the benefits of concentrated Capitalism as prices drop.
My point is, there's no reason we couldn't do this any other time of year. If we could all make an agreement that we're all concentrate our shopping on the same day. Say, pick the last Friday in each month; it would be a make-or-break day for retailers, who would have to compete by having big sales. Okay, it would be inconvenient to camp out in front of stores in the early morning and then fight your way into the store every month instead of just once a year. But the point is: low prices.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Smoke 'Em Whether Or Not You Got 'Em
There should be some sort of non-smoking equivalent of smoking. That is, we should have an excuse to go outside too. Often, during a break in any sort of job or event, I find myself waiting for the smokers to do their thing. I do my best to waste time until they get back, say by using the bathroom or getting a drink. But it never quite fills the time.
You have to admit that if you look past the whole decreased-life-expectancy thing, smoking has its uses. It's an excuse to take a break; it's an excuse to go outside. But it also has less obvious benefits. I noticed when working in an office that the strongest personal connections between people in different departments were between smokers. After all, they'd spent plenty of time together. When groups had to work together, they often communicated using those smoking-based relationships rather than the ones set out in the corporate hierarchy.
So we should create a similar vice. One that's not bad for our health of course. But it has to be something that requires going outside. Maybe burning incense? Some sort of skin treatment requiring a portable sauna?
I don't know why smokers would give all this up by using e-cigarettes. But if smokers are going to be encroaching on non-smokers' turf, it's only fair that it goes both ways.
You have to admit that if you look past the whole decreased-life-expectancy thing, smoking has its uses. It's an excuse to take a break; it's an excuse to go outside. But it also has less obvious benefits. I noticed when working in an office that the strongest personal connections between people in different departments were between smokers. After all, they'd spent plenty of time together. When groups had to work together, they often communicated using those smoking-based relationships rather than the ones set out in the corporate hierarchy.
So we should create a similar vice. One that's not bad for our health of course. But it has to be something that requires going outside. Maybe burning incense? Some sort of skin treatment requiring a portable sauna?
I don't know why smokers would give all this up by using e-cigarettes. But if smokers are going to be encroaching on non-smokers' turf, it's only fair that it goes both ways.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Shouldn't It Be "Sticking Plaster 30"?
We've had another Band-Aid, this time to help countries fighting Ebola. So cue the complaining! People have criticized the optics of rich white celebrities coming to the aid of poor Africans. And they've complained that the song paints a negative picture of Africa.
This is part of a bigger problem in modern society, that we want charity without the connotations of charity. That is, please give money to help these people, but don't acknowledge that they are needy. I think this attitude comes from a perfect storm of ideology: The very liberal would resist describing any group in absolute negative terms (particularly compared to the West) while the very conservative see neediness as inherently bad. Surely we can get beyond that and acknowledge that circumstance sometimes put good people in need of help from others.
The fact is that Band-Aid is a symbol of a screwed-up society. We live in a world where one group of people have way more money than everyone else, and that group of people tend to follow the instructions of their entertainers. Realizing this, the entertainers ask the people to give money to poorer people. That's essentially what happens, and it is ridiculous. But I think we can agree that the entertainers asking people to give to the less fortunate is the one sensible part of it. The stupid parts of it are the concentration of wealth in the West, and the exaggerated place celebrities have as trend-setters. Getting angry at the celebrities themselves for making the best of a crazy situation doesn't make sense.
This is part of a bigger problem in modern society, that we want charity without the connotations of charity. That is, please give money to help these people, but don't acknowledge that they are needy. I think this attitude comes from a perfect storm of ideology: The very liberal would resist describing any group in absolute negative terms (particularly compared to the West) while the very conservative see neediness as inherently bad. Surely we can get beyond that and acknowledge that circumstance sometimes put good people in need of help from others.
The fact is that Band-Aid is a symbol of a screwed-up society. We live in a world where one group of people have way more money than everyone else, and that group of people tend to follow the instructions of their entertainers. Realizing this, the entertainers ask the people to give money to poorer people. That's essentially what happens, and it is ridiculous. But I think we can agree that the entertainers asking people to give to the less fortunate is the one sensible part of it. The stupid parts of it are the concentration of wealth in the West, and the exaggerated place celebrities have as trend-setters. Getting angry at the celebrities themselves for making the best of a crazy situation doesn't make sense.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Minimalism
There's a proposal in Switzerland to have a minimum income for all citizens. That is, a cheque from the government for all adults, no means test, no questions asked.
On the surface, it seems like a crazy idea based purely on quixotic ideology and no sense of reality. But it's actually being taken seriously by a lot of people, even some on the right side of the political spectrum.
The Swiss proposal calls for $2,800 a month. Working it out how affordable it would be in Canada is complex because of our two levels of government, but here's my quick calculations: Adjusting for price differences (Switzerland is expensive) it would cost $173 billion in Ontario. Ontario's budget is $127 billion, and Canada's budget is $279 billion, with Ontario making up 38% of Canada's population.
This may seem like a lot of money. But here's where it gets interesting, and less lefty. The basic income would replace a huge number of other expenditures: welfare, employment insurance, pensions. And that's before we even get to some more unexpected things, say the arts. If a person has a backup income, there's no need to get a further government payment to pursue an arts career.
On top of all this there's the bureaucratic efficiency. I'm loathe to mention that, because a promise of saving money through efficient bureaucracy is usually the crutch of desperate politicians with no real ideas. But if you've just replaced much of the government with a big machine that prints cheques, then you probably can expect some savings.
So there's a strange appeal to some on the right. If your libertarianism is motivated more by ideology than as a premise for lowering your taxes, then this will have an appeal. Even icon of conservative economics Friedrich Hayek liked the idea. In the end it does give people freedom and choice, while reducing the bureaucracy. Essentially it's reducing the size of government, without reducing its fiscal size. It's libertarianism a Keynesian could love.
Just to be clear, I'm still not sold on this idea. We don't know what effect this is going to have on work incentives. There's also the fact that we're applying a "just enough to get by" income on some people who deserve more, like people who would work, but have physical or mental reasons they can't. And then there's the fact that this set-up makes the "Robin Hood" nature of the welfare state is particularly apparent, which will rub many the wrong way.
But I still think it's interesting to consider, because you can think of it as an ideological compromise between the individual agency of conservatism and libertarianism, and the safety net of liberalism and socialism. Really, it's no surprise the idea has found traction in Switzerland, since it seems to be one of the few countries that holds both sides as integral national values.
On the surface, it seems like a crazy idea based purely on quixotic ideology and no sense of reality. But it's actually being taken seriously by a lot of people, even some on the right side of the political spectrum.
The Swiss proposal calls for $2,800 a month. Working it out how affordable it would be in Canada is complex because of our two levels of government, but here's my quick calculations: Adjusting for price differences (Switzerland is expensive) it would cost $173 billion in Ontario. Ontario's budget is $127 billion, and Canada's budget is $279 billion, with Ontario making up 38% of Canada's population.
This may seem like a lot of money. But here's where it gets interesting, and less lefty. The basic income would replace a huge number of other expenditures: welfare, employment insurance, pensions. And that's before we even get to some more unexpected things, say the arts. If a person has a backup income, there's no need to get a further government payment to pursue an arts career.
On top of all this there's the bureaucratic efficiency. I'm loathe to mention that, because a promise of saving money through efficient bureaucracy is usually the crutch of desperate politicians with no real ideas. But if you've just replaced much of the government with a big machine that prints cheques, then you probably can expect some savings.
So there's a strange appeal to some on the right. If your libertarianism is motivated more by ideology than as a premise for lowering your taxes, then this will have an appeal. Even icon of conservative economics Friedrich Hayek liked the idea. In the end it does give people freedom and choice, while reducing the bureaucracy. Essentially it's reducing the size of government, without reducing its fiscal size. It's libertarianism a Keynesian could love.
Just to be clear, I'm still not sold on this idea. We don't know what effect this is going to have on work incentives. There's also the fact that we're applying a "just enough to get by" income on some people who deserve more, like people who would work, but have physical or mental reasons they can't. And then there's the fact that this set-up makes the "Robin Hood" nature of the welfare state is particularly apparent, which will rub many the wrong way.
But I still think it's interesting to consider, because you can think of it as an ideological compromise between the individual agency of conservatism and libertarianism, and the safety net of liberalism and socialism. Really, it's no surprise the idea has found traction in Switzerland, since it seems to be one of the few countries that holds both sides as integral national values.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Do Carpenters Dream Of Wooden Sheep?
I just saw an ad for a portable table saw called the Bladerunner. I'm assuming they want to attract fans of the movie (they certainly couldn't be trying to associate themselves with Oscar Pistorius.) I don't see how that makes marketing sense; surely geeky people would use a 3D printer to make new parts, rather than old-fashioned ideas like cutting things.
However, despite the movie reference in the name, they went with a Caesar motif for the slogan, "I came, I saw." That would be applicable if it were called the "Cae-Saw" or something. But "Blade Runner" would imply a whole different set of puns:
However, despite the movie reference in the name, they went with a Caesar motif for the slogan, "I came, I saw." That would be applicable if it were called the "Cae-Saw" or something. But "Blade Runner" would imply a whole different set of puns:
- Wake up, time to saw!
- I've cut things you people wouldn't believe.
- She won't sharpen, but then again who does?
- You're looking through a DeWalt catalogue. You come across a full-page photo of a band saw
- "More wooden than wooden" is our motto
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Shuffling Through The Snow
What did Buffalo ever do to deserve this? Not the animal, they didn't do anything. I mean the city. We just had a snowstorm, and while it was bad here in southern Ontario, it was easily survivable. But somehow Buffalo got three feet of snow, paralysing the city. This just keeps happening: storms that are merely inconvenient here - at the same latitude in Canada - save their worst for the Queen City. (That's Buffalo's nickname; people know that, right?)
I'm sure Americans hear about the snow in Buffalo and assume it's a result of its position in the North, but clearly it's more than that. The only explanation I can come up with - and keep in mind I know little about weather - is that it comes from the city's position at the Eastern end of Lake Erie. Thus the prevailing winds blow along the entire length of the lake, picking up moisture, then dumping it on Buffalo at the end. (And Wikipedia seems to agree.)
That begs the question: who decided to put the city there? Or rather, how did a city in such an unfortunate position get so large? Looking around the Great Lakes, there are no other major cities on windward shores. I always assumed that was because people avoided the places with the worst weather conditions.
You got to feel bad for them. Here in Southern Ontario, the two big American cities on our doorsteps are Buffalo and Detroit. Those are two of the most deteriorated cities in the country, and it tends to give us a little smugness. That's unfortunate, since it's not like either city was really to blame for the global trends were their downfall.
In Buffalo's case, we should feel a kinship with them due to our similarities. Not only is there the weather and most of the U.S. ignoring them, they also care about hockey, and yet can't seem to put together a winning team.
I'm sure Americans hear about the snow in Buffalo and assume it's a result of its position in the North, but clearly it's more than that. The only explanation I can come up with - and keep in mind I know little about weather - is that it comes from the city's position at the Eastern end of Lake Erie. Thus the prevailing winds blow along the entire length of the lake, picking up moisture, then dumping it on Buffalo at the end. (And Wikipedia seems to agree.)
That begs the question: who decided to put the city there? Or rather, how did a city in such an unfortunate position get so large? Looking around the Great Lakes, there are no other major cities on windward shores. I always assumed that was because people avoided the places with the worst weather conditions.
You got to feel bad for them. Here in Southern Ontario, the two big American cities on our doorsteps are Buffalo and Detroit. Those are two of the most deteriorated cities in the country, and it tends to give us a little smugness. That's unfortunate, since it's not like either city was really to blame for the global trends were their downfall.
In Buffalo's case, we should feel a kinship with them due to our similarities. Not only is there the weather and most of the U.S. ignoring them, they also care about hockey, and yet can't seem to put together a winning team.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Justice For My Inner Eight-Year Old
Glen A. Larson died this week. If you're in your forties, that name may seem slightly familiar, especially if you picture it on a TV screen prefaced by "executive producer." But once again, the media is confused as to why to memorialise him. I've seen different stories refer to him as "creator of Magnum P.I.," "creator of Knight Rider" or "creator of Battlestar Galactica." But none of them seemed to put those credits together with B.J. and the Bear, The Fall Guy, Buck Rogers and The Six-Million Dollar Man and remember him as the king of Eighties action shows.
(As an aside, did you know that he put a lot of references to his Mormon faith in Battlestar Galactica?)
Combine that with the recent death of R.A. Montgomery, publisher of the Choose Your Own Adventure books, and we've had a couple of instances of short shrift given to people who had a hand in the entertainment of my childhood. Both the Eighties and geekery are getting much more respect than they ever have before, so you'd think the media would use this to give a fond bit of nostalgia.
Instead, I'm just going to have to add them to my ongoing series of people who deserved better obituaries than the media gave them. Now I call on all of you Gen-X'ers out there to hum the Knight Rider theme, as you go to the web page of your choice.
(As an aside, did you know that he put a lot of references to his Mormon faith in Battlestar Galactica?)
Combine that with the recent death of R.A. Montgomery, publisher of the Choose Your Own Adventure books, and we've had a couple of instances of short shrift given to people who had a hand in the entertainment of my childhood. Both the Eighties and geekery are getting much more respect than they ever have before, so you'd think the media would use this to give a fond bit of nostalgia.
Instead, I'm just going to have to add them to my ongoing series of people who deserved better obituaries than the media gave them. Now I call on all of you Gen-X'ers out there to hum the Knight Rider theme, as you go to the web page of your choice.
Friday, November 14, 2014
You Got A Fast Car
Recently, a car put up for auction got some notice. It's a Ferrari Enzo, and the latest price is $370,000. That's quite a steal for an expensive, rare car that's no longer being made.
Of course, there's a catch: it's been in an accident, and needs some work. By "some work," I mean one wheel is missing, both the front and rear suspension are badly damaged. The engine starts, but many parts need replacing. Many body panels are damaged, and since they're made out of composite materials they'll likely need replacing. And worst of all, the carbon fibre "tub" that makes up the the core of the car has cracked, and that will cost a lot to fix. The total repair bill is estimated at $870,000.
So why would anyone pay $300,000+ for a that will need close to a million in repairs? Because that's actually a good price compared to the cost of a mint-condition model.
It brings up an interesting aspect of limited-edition supercars like the Enzo or the McLaren F1: they're nearly impossible to destroy. That's not because they're any more durable than your average car: you can easily find schadenfreude reports of them getting badly damaged when someone tries driving them at their limits. But they are difficult to write-off.
We use the terms "write-off" or "totalled" as a generic way of saying "destroyed," but what it technically means is that something is too expensive to repair. For instance, say your 1997 Taurus sustains damage that will cost $4,000 to fix. But a replacement car of similar vintage would likely cost less than a thousand. Thus, it doesn't make sense for you (or your insurance company) to pay for the repair; it would be cheaper to buy a replacement car.
But these famous-but-rare supercars are so expensive, it's nearly impossible to damage them so badly that repairs will be too expensive to undertake. Just about any repair will cost less than the fixed car will be worth.
With that in mind, I've decided that I will put my Ferrari Enzo up for auction. Like the one in this story, it needs some work. You will have to replace the body, suspension, wheels, engine, transmission, interior and chassis. See, my Ferrari Enzo is, technically, a twisted piece of metal I found in the street the other day. But I'm sure you could rebuild it for less than the current asking price for an Enzo. Jay Leno, I await your call.
Of course, there's a catch: it's been in an accident, and needs some work. By "some work," I mean one wheel is missing, both the front and rear suspension are badly damaged. The engine starts, but many parts need replacing. Many body panels are damaged, and since they're made out of composite materials they'll likely need replacing. And worst of all, the carbon fibre "tub" that makes up the the core of the car has cracked, and that will cost a lot to fix. The total repair bill is estimated at $870,000.
So why would anyone pay $300,000+ for a that will need close to a million in repairs? Because that's actually a good price compared to the cost of a mint-condition model.
It brings up an interesting aspect of limited-edition supercars like the Enzo or the McLaren F1: they're nearly impossible to destroy. That's not because they're any more durable than your average car: you can easily find schadenfreude reports of them getting badly damaged when someone tries driving them at their limits. But they are difficult to write-off.
We use the terms "write-off" or "totalled" as a generic way of saying "destroyed," but what it technically means is that something is too expensive to repair. For instance, say your 1997 Taurus sustains damage that will cost $4,000 to fix. But a replacement car of similar vintage would likely cost less than a thousand. Thus, it doesn't make sense for you (or your insurance company) to pay for the repair; it would be cheaper to buy a replacement car.
But these famous-but-rare supercars are so expensive, it's nearly impossible to damage them so badly that repairs will be too expensive to undertake. Just about any repair will cost less than the fixed car will be worth.
With that in mind, I've decided that I will put my Ferrari Enzo up for auction. Like the one in this story, it needs some work. You will have to replace the body, suspension, wheels, engine, transmission, interior and chassis. See, my Ferrari Enzo is, technically, a twisted piece of metal I found in the street the other day. But I'm sure you could rebuild it for less than the current asking price for an Enzo. Jay Leno, I await your call.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Neutrality Isn't
Net Neutrality is in the news again. (You can read my explanation on the issue here, along with my explanation of why I'm bitter and cynical about it.) It got a boost in publicity recently because President Obama came out in favour of it. Predictably, other politicians then quickly decided they were against it. Conservative icon Ted Cruz tweeted that it was just like Obamacare:
That lead to a lot of criticism from techies and/or liberals, well summarised in this comic from The Oatmeal. It ridicules Cruz's tweet, and encourages politicians to see this as a bipartisan issue that is in everyone's interest. And it notes that Cruz received a lot of campaign funds from communication companies that would benefit from the end of Net Neutrality.
Well I have a different perspective and it's something quite unexpected, so I'll put it in its own paragraph for emphasis:
Ted Cruz has a point.
To clarify, I should point out that I do fully believe the following:
So this is one of those cases of a clock that doesn't work being right twice a day. And can we please come up with a more modern version of that saying?
The fact is that Net Neutrality is a lot like Obamacare. In both cases we're talking about regulating something such that there is a minimum amount of service that everyone can depend on, with the cost being that no one can get better service even if they can pay extra. In both cases, the alternative is a less-regulated system in which your level of service depends on your ability to pay, allowing people to buy better service with more money, but allowing the possibility that some will be priced out of a reasonable level of service.
Of course, Cruz is being disingenuous when he characterises Net Neutrality as though it were the government running the Internet. But that too is a similarity to Obamacare: the proposed solution is a system of regulation rather than total government control (in contrast to say, Canada's health care system.) But, in both cases, opponents are falsely portraying it as the government running everything.
As for The Oatmeal, it's wrong: this is a partisan issue. Some people may agree with its opinion that regulating internet speeds is a good idea (I do) but many others will not, thinking it's better if people/companies can pay for better service. That's what a partisan issue is: one in which the parties disagree. Just because you're really sure that you're right doesn't make your cause bipartisan.
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014
That lead to a lot of criticism from techies and/or liberals, well summarised in this comic from The Oatmeal. It ridicules Cruz's tweet, and encourages politicians to see this as a bipartisan issue that is in everyone's interest. And it notes that Cruz received a lot of campaign funds from communication companies that would benefit from the end of Net Neutrality.
Well I have a different perspective and it's something quite unexpected, so I'll put it in its own paragraph for emphasis:
Ted Cruz has a point.
To clarify, I should point out that I do fully believe the following:
- Net Neutrality is a good thing.
- Ted Cruz doesn't know what Net Neutrality is.
- Cruz is saying this primarily to stay in the good graces of his donors.
- Cruz compares everything he doesn't like to Obamacare ("I asked for medium-rare! This steakhouse is just like Obamacare! ")
So this is one of those cases of a clock that doesn't work being right twice a day. And can we please come up with a more modern version of that saying?
The fact is that Net Neutrality is a lot like Obamacare. In both cases we're talking about regulating something such that there is a minimum amount of service that everyone can depend on, with the cost being that no one can get better service even if they can pay extra. In both cases, the alternative is a less-regulated system in which your level of service depends on your ability to pay, allowing people to buy better service with more money, but allowing the possibility that some will be priced out of a reasonable level of service.
Of course, Cruz is being disingenuous when he characterises Net Neutrality as though it were the government running the Internet. But that too is a similarity to Obamacare: the proposed solution is a system of regulation rather than total government control (in contrast to say, Canada's health care system.) But, in both cases, opponents are falsely portraying it as the government running everything.
As for The Oatmeal, it's wrong: this is a partisan issue. Some people may agree with its opinion that regulating internet speeds is a good idea (I do) but many others will not, thinking it's better if people/companies can pay for better service. That's what a partisan issue is: one in which the parties disagree. Just because you're really sure that you're right doesn't make your cause bipartisan.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Things My Grandfather Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future.
I have a pair of speakers that are better than the one in your Victrola, but they're so small they fit in a person's ears. They are still in working order, but I may have to replace them because the foam cover is ripped, and they don't sell them separately from new speakers.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
All Of These Things Are Just Like The Others
You may have seen a recent article about the "Hipster Effect." That is, a scientist has mathematically explained why hipsters look the same, even though they are trying to be individual.
The explanation is this: assume that everyone in a community wants to avoid any trend. You also assume that, like most people, it takes a while for an individual to realize that a trend exists (that is, you don't assume there is a trend to wear red suspenders just because you saw one person wearing red suspenders; it takes a while to notice a pattern.) When you simulate such a community, they eventually fall into a rhythm where everyone realizes there's a trend, switches to the opposite of the trend, notices that trend, switches, and so on.
It's an interesting concept: it's a lesson in how patterns can have very non-obvious causes, and a lesson in how difficult it is for an individual in a large population to avoid being part of large movements. But I don't think it alone explains the phenomena of individualistic people looking the same.
In a world where you can easily distinguish yourself in a myriad of different ways, it's not likely you'd create a trend that way. That is, if you're tired of everyone wearing white, wearing black isn't the only way to distinguish yourself; you could start wearing 1970's style rollerskates. Or wear an ironic neckerchief. Or carry a clarinet around.
Okay, there is the possibility that avoiding trends itself becomes a trend. That is, you might try to avoid clothing trends by choosing your clothing based only on practicality and comfort. If enough people do that, then comfortable, practical clothing might be seen as a trend, and adopted by people who choose their clothing based on fashion. That's sort of what happened with Grunge era fashion.
I remember a Sociology prof observing that loners often look like other loners, though he explained it in terms of psychology: everyone has a need for both individuality and belonging, but different people have different amounts of each need. So individualistic people don't completely reject membership in any group, they just have less of a need than most people. So for them, the ideal solution is to join a smaller group. If you're in a subculture, you can feel individual while still maintaining a sense that you belong to something.
That seems to be a better explanation than some sort of comedy of errors in which people end up the same in an attempt to be different. That sounds like something that would be the premise of an SNL sketch or a Twilight Zone episode.
The explanation is this: assume that everyone in a community wants to avoid any trend. You also assume that, like most people, it takes a while for an individual to realize that a trend exists (that is, you don't assume there is a trend to wear red suspenders just because you saw one person wearing red suspenders; it takes a while to notice a pattern.) When you simulate such a community, they eventually fall into a rhythm where everyone realizes there's a trend, switches to the opposite of the trend, notices that trend, switches, and so on.
It's an interesting concept: it's a lesson in how patterns can have very non-obvious causes, and a lesson in how difficult it is for an individual in a large population to avoid being part of large movements. But I don't think it alone explains the phenomena of individualistic people looking the same.
In a world where you can easily distinguish yourself in a myriad of different ways, it's not likely you'd create a trend that way. That is, if you're tired of everyone wearing white, wearing black isn't the only way to distinguish yourself; you could start wearing 1970's style rollerskates. Or wear an ironic neckerchief. Or carry a clarinet around.
Okay, there is the possibility that avoiding trends itself becomes a trend. That is, you might try to avoid clothing trends by choosing your clothing based only on practicality and comfort. If enough people do that, then comfortable, practical clothing might be seen as a trend, and adopted by people who choose their clothing based on fashion. That's sort of what happened with Grunge era fashion.
I remember a Sociology prof observing that loners often look like other loners, though he explained it in terms of psychology: everyone has a need for both individuality and belonging, but different people have different amounts of each need. So individualistic people don't completely reject membership in any group, they just have less of a need than most people. So for them, the ideal solution is to join a smaller group. If you're in a subculture, you can feel individual while still maintaining a sense that you belong to something.
That seems to be a better explanation than some sort of comedy of errors in which people end up the same in an attempt to be different. That sounds like something that would be the premise of an SNL sketch or a Twilight Zone episode.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Hall Of Name
Today was the last day of the Canadian Football League season. People are talking about end-of-season awards, but there's one category everyone is missing: names. This season, the CFL has had the best player names, exceeding even the NFL in that area. So here are my nominees:
| Hamilton Tiger-Cats | Bakari Grant |
| Montreal Alouettes | Winston Venable |
| Toronto Argonauts | Swayze Waters |
| Ottawa Redblacks | Dobson Collins |
| Calgary Stampeders | Bo Levi Mitchell |
| Edmonton Eskimos | Adarius Bowman |
| Saskatchewan Roughriders | Weston Dressler |
| B.C. Lions | Solomon Elimimian |
| Winnipeg Blue Bombers | Paris Cotton |
Friday, November 7, 2014
Would You Buy A Used Racing Team From These People?
Two of Formula 1's eleven teams have run out of money. Marussia appears to be finished. And Caterham is trying to raise money through crowdfunding.
This story has been reported in the media as a reckoning for the sport, in which they will realize that the finances are unsustainable, and it will have to be remade. Racing suffers from the same success-begets-success problem that a lot of sports face, in which good teams have greater income, which allow them to outbid other teams for top talent. Auto racing has it worse for a couple of big reasons: one is that money doesn't just buy talent, it buys technology. And there's the fact that no one has any reason to love the lesser teams: In team sports, a bad team can at least count on at least some fans from their home town to support them even when they are uncompetitive. That's why I doubt the Caterham funding plea will work; sadly, there probably aren't many people around the world that will care.
Sports is a bizarro world where Americans are socialist and Europeans are unapologetic capitalists. So NASCAR and IndyCar have low-cost, balanced series, while Formula 1 does little to keep lesser teams alive, never mind competitive. So not only to winning teams win the big prize money and get the biggest sponsorship dollars, they also get the bigger share of the TV money. So it's inevitable that lesser teams will get caught in a vicious circle. Some people have suggested that the solution is to let the unsuccessful teams go under, and just have the rich and successful teams field more cars each. But that won't work either, since the problem will just reappear: Even if there are fewer teams with more cars, someone has to finish last, and no one will want to sponsor them.
So eventually the sport will have to completely overhaul how it works. But that will mean a radical shift in philosophy, as they drop the pretence that the sport is some ultimate technological competition at the bleeding-edge of engineering. Instead, they'll have to tighten the rules to make the cars virtually the same, and sell it as a competitive sport.
But they won't be doing that any time soon. In a world with many emerging markets, there is a constant supply of rich people and corporations looking for instant credibility and status. Essentially, that's the case with Russian-owned Marussia, (formerly) Malaysian-owned Caterham, and the next candidate for bankruptcy, Force India. So expect all these teams to be back next year, under new names and ownership.
This story has been reported in the media as a reckoning for the sport, in which they will realize that the finances are unsustainable, and it will have to be remade. Racing suffers from the same success-begets-success problem that a lot of sports face, in which good teams have greater income, which allow them to outbid other teams for top talent. Auto racing has it worse for a couple of big reasons: one is that money doesn't just buy talent, it buys technology. And there's the fact that no one has any reason to love the lesser teams: In team sports, a bad team can at least count on at least some fans from their home town to support them even when they are uncompetitive. That's why I doubt the Caterham funding plea will work; sadly, there probably aren't many people around the world that will care.
Sports is a bizarro world where Americans are socialist and Europeans are unapologetic capitalists. So NASCAR and IndyCar have low-cost, balanced series, while Formula 1 does little to keep lesser teams alive, never mind competitive. So not only to winning teams win the big prize money and get the biggest sponsorship dollars, they also get the bigger share of the TV money. So it's inevitable that lesser teams will get caught in a vicious circle. Some people have suggested that the solution is to let the unsuccessful teams go under, and just have the rich and successful teams field more cars each. But that won't work either, since the problem will just reappear: Even if there are fewer teams with more cars, someone has to finish last, and no one will want to sponsor them.
So eventually the sport will have to completely overhaul how it works. But that will mean a radical shift in philosophy, as they drop the pretence that the sport is some ultimate technological competition at the bleeding-edge of engineering. Instead, they'll have to tighten the rules to make the cars virtually the same, and sell it as a competitive sport.
But they won't be doing that any time soon. In a world with many emerging markets, there is a constant supply of rich people and corporations looking for instant credibility and status. Essentially, that's the case with Russian-owned Marussia, (formerly) Malaysian-owned Caterham, and the next candidate for bankruptcy, Force India. So expect all these teams to be back next year, under new names and ownership.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Undecided Voters Need Their Head Examined
You may have seen a recent article about researchers predicting if a person is liberal or conservative based on their reaction to "disturbing" (i.e. gross) images. Despite what you're likely thinking, it's not that one side was more disturbed by the images than the other; actually, people's reaction to the images (and even their description of their reaction to them) didn't predict a person's ideology. Instead, it was a scan of brain activity while the person looked at the pictures. The different areas of the brain that were activated could be used to predict a person's political views with 95% accuracy.
There are a lot of interesting and controversial aspects to the story, but what I find interesting is the high accuracy of the scan. It would seem to surpass other tests to predict a person's ideology, such as: annual income or church attendance. More interestingly, it would likely be better than the test of simply asking the person what their ideology is.
I, like most politically aware people, are constantly amazed at how many undecided people there are. I can understand people being torn between two similar options they've narrowed it down to. But there are always people who go into the election seriously claiming that they have no idea which of the diverse candidates they favour. So those people have no idea what their political ideology is, but according to this paper, a brain scan could tell them.
There are a lot of interesting and controversial aspects to the story, but what I find interesting is the high accuracy of the scan. It would seem to surpass other tests to predict a person's ideology, such as: annual income or church attendance. More interestingly, it would likely be better than the test of simply asking the person what their ideology is.
I, like most politically aware people, are constantly amazed at how many undecided people there are. I can understand people being torn between two similar options they've narrowed it down to. But there are always people who go into the election seriously claiming that they have no idea which of the diverse candidates they favour. So those people have no idea what their political ideology is, but according to this paper, a brain scan could tell them.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Like An Annoying Neighbour
Often, companies will use a common character or concept in their ads. Like Wendy's with that red-haired woman who seems to have a different circle of friends every week. I'm sure that people in the ad business have a name for it.
Anyway, usually a brand will only have one of those ad motifs at a time. Wendy's, for instance, used to have Dave Thomas, and before that they had the Where's The Beef lady. But you wouldn't try to have two ad styles going at once, unless you are trying to cover up the fact that you have an insane number of ads.
Which brings me to insurance. All the big American insurance companies run two campaigns.
So why would insurance require so many ways to advertise? I know insurance is one of those businesses that is "sold, not bought" but still, that's a suspicious amount of effort put into selling something. Usually if people use so many cutesy gimmicks in advertising, it's either breakfast cereal, or they're trying to distract you from something.
At this point, I was going to rant about how bad the Esurance ads are. But they are so misguided that I thought first I should google, "esurance 'half that time' 'is that a joke'". I think the ads are serious - taking on GEICO's "15 minutes could save you 15%" ads, by promising to take half the time, but not saying how much money they save you. But I came across another blog that has already disembowelled the ad campaign, so I won't bother.
Anyway, usually a brand will only have one of those ad motifs at a time. Wendy's, for instance, used to have Dave Thomas, and before that they had the Where's The Beef lady. But you wouldn't try to have two ad styles going at once, unless you are trying to cover up the fact that you have an insane number of ads.
Which brings me to insurance. All the big American insurance companies run two campaigns.
- GEICO: the English gecko, "Everyone knows that."
- Progressive: Flo, that anthropomorphic box
- Allstate: the President from 24, Mayhem
So why would insurance require so many ways to advertise? I know insurance is one of those businesses that is "sold, not bought" but still, that's a suspicious amount of effort put into selling something. Usually if people use so many cutesy gimmicks in advertising, it's either breakfast cereal, or they're trying to distract you from something.
At this point, I was going to rant about how bad the Esurance ads are. But they are so misguided that I thought first I should google, "esurance 'half that time' 'is that a joke'". I think the ads are serious - taking on GEICO's "15 minutes could save you 15%" ads, by promising to take half the time, but not saying how much money they save you. But I came across another blog that has already disembowelled the ad campaign, so I won't bother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)