Journal of No. 118

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

Nonfiction look at how humans make decisions... mostly badly. Kahneman has a Nobel Prize in Economics and here he lays out a rough chronology of the work that he and others have done in his area. He posits, with pretty good evidence, that there are two systems. A fast, intuitive system that is error prone. What's that? A snake! Jump away! Oh, it was just a stick. And a slow, more logical and evidence based system. If you use the slow system on every long skinny thing in your path, you may wind up dead, so the fast approach also has value.

There's a lot of good stuff here about mistakes and biases in thinking. Some of it I'm pretty familiar with from skeptical literature, but here he puts together a lot of the key experiments that demonstrate the phenomena.

Later, it bogs down a bit for me as it moves a bit too much into economics. There are a lot of literally irrational choices people make when evaluating potential gains and losses, but I don't personally find it that interesting, although I think his explanatory theories make sense. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and maybe that's why people might prefer a 100% chance of winning $50 over a 90% chance of winning $100. 



You Dreamed of Empire Álvaro Enrigue 

A quasi not-quite historical take on the meeting between Cortez and Moctezuma and the characters around them. I appreciated some of the characters and the pre-Columbian setting, but overall I didn't find this as compelling or humorous as others seem to.

 Ebay is changing the Matrix again. The main thing is paying sellers directly to bank accounts and avoiding Paypal (and Paypal fees). But they are raising the 'Final Value Fee', i.e. their take of your sale price(*). And despite claims of lower fees for all, they don't provide a side by side comparison. Which seems suspicious, so allow me.

I googled this page from searching for fees in 2019. I don't see 2019 in the document, but it looks roughly accurate.
And this is the new announcement.

OLD:

Most categories, including Music > Records, eBay Motors > Parts & Accessories, and eBay Motors > Automotive Tools & Supplies. For vehicles, see our Motors fees.	First 200 listings free per month, then $0.35 per listing	10.2% (maximum fee $750 per item)
Books DVDs & Movies Music (except Records category)		12.2% (maximum fee $750 per item)

New:

Most categories, including Music > Records, eBay Motors > Parts & Accessories, and eBay Motors > Automotive Tools & Supplies. For vehicles, see our Motors fees.	First 250 listings free per month, then $0.35 per listing	12.55% on total amount of the sale up to $7,500 calculated per item 2.35% on the portion of the sale over $7,500
Books DVDs & Movies Music (except Records category)		14.55% on total amount of the sale up to $7,500 calculated per item 2.35% on the portion of the sale over $7,500

But wait, there's more.
Old: Final value fee
New: Final value fee % + $0.30 per order


And more:
Old: The total amount of the sale includes the item price, and any shipping and handling charges. Sales tax isn't included in the calculation.

New: The total amount of the sale includes the item price, any handling charges, the shipping service the buyer selects, sales tax, and any other applicable fees.

Finally, the current Paypal charge is  2.9% on the total plus a 30 cent non-refundable fee.

So the fastest comparison is to say going from 10.2% to 12.55% is a rise of 2.35%, but the paypal fee was 2.9%, so you're saving a little money on each transaction.

But, if you live in a high tax state, and I do, that inclusion of sales tax in the price is significant. I will also point out it is fucking bullshit. As is the existing inclusion of shipping charges.

Current LA County sales tax is 10.25%. If we take 10% for simplicity, we can compare the fees on an item of, say, $100 (including shipping (which again somewhat rudely is subject to sales tax)).

Old:
FVF is 10.2% of $100 or $10.20. 
Paypal fee is 2.9% of $100 + $0.30 or $3.20
Total = $13.40

New:
FVF is 12.55% of $110 (with the tax) + $0.30 = $14.11

$0.71 cents more. If you live in some part of CA at the base sales tax of 7.25%, the increase is about $0.35.

I think if your local sales tax is 4.5%, then it comes out about even. If your local tax is higher than that, the new plan is worse, and vice versa.

There's been quite the confluence of events. Buzzfeed (don't laugh) ran a deeply researched article about Lawrence Krauss and a number of sexual allegations against him. None violent, but sleazy. Apparently enough to warrant being banned from a couple campuses where he used to work. While I was dimmmmmly aware, for me it was basically internet gossip about someone I don't really know.

I found the article convincing, and icky enough that it bothered me that I remembered that Krauss was a fellow of CSI (nee CSICOP). And I went to the trouble of checking their page of fellows to be sure.

And there are two things that probably made that association leap to my mind. Number one, another Fellow is Benjamin Radford, and he too has been associated with some similar accusations (starting from incidents after a consensual relationship turned sour). Again, I am not the insider here, but I gather that Barry Karr [or maybe Ron Lindsay -- like I said, I'm not an insider] made an investigation, meted out some punishment, and I don't know the ins and outs, other than to say that Radford is still a Fellow, as is his most noteworthy accuser (from where I sit, not being close to any of this). So I feel confident that something was done with at least some semblance of justice. But the episode also pulled additional anonymous whispers out of the ether.

The second thing that probably kept it fresh in my mind was that the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer noted that Susan Gerbic had been made a Fellow. This was surprising, because most of the Fellows are members of the professoriate in disciplines from physics to psychology. And Susan runs the guerrilla skeptics on wikipedia. I mean, if done right, obviously it's to everyone's benefit for Wikipedia to be accurate, and credulous viewpoints need to be countered by skeptical ones. But...

#1: my brief foray into Wikipedia editing convinced me that it takes a certain kind of person to enjoy and win the Wikipedia editing game. And it isn't me. And I'm vaguely suspicious of the people who find themselves at home in that environment.
#2: Susan's common appearances on the Skepticality podcast did not impress me favorably. In addition to her stated work to push an agenda, it was clear she was also generally a shill for conferences and meetings, etc. Some of the things that pushed me away from greater involvement in organized skepticism (it was not enough that I volunteered to be part of the Independent Investigations Group (an organization I helped name) but to stay in, one would be required to take classes for money -- fuck that).
#3: In short, rather than a skeptic, she strikes me more as a True Believer. Our side is right, and this justifies almost anything.
#4: More recently, I see that Susan is essentially defending Radford on his Wiki page (see the Talk) to keep the page clean of talk of the accusation. Now I don't know that it's notable or meets Wikipedia's standards, but it does bother me that it seems that the truth is less important than defending the people in one's camp.

Anyhoo, this had me thinking about CSI having two fairly well documented pervs among its Fellows (and I wasn't so hot about the merger between CFI and the Dawkins Foundation). And so for a long time (when I only knew of one perv) I was reconsidering the bequest in my will to CSICOP. And now there were (at least) two pervs. Now when you look at the list... there are a lot of people I admire, from Susan Blackmore to Daniel Dennett to EC Krupp to Joe Nickell to Bob Park to Eugenie Scott. Maybe two bad eggs isn't too bad a proportion? On the other hand, there's more than enough star power that I really wish they'd get rid of any bad eggs. After appropriate scrutiny.

And then my stepdad died last week. And I read through his will. And I thought a lot more about my own.

And then a miracle... Lawrence Krauss was (at least temporarily) un-Fellowed from CSI. And I note that between looking at the CSI Fellows page a few days ago and now, Susan Gerbic has also vanished from the list, shortly after arriving. This I assume(?) is at her behest.

So we're back down to one perv (that has come to my attention) who served metaphorical time for one incident. All cool?

(Thank lackofgod that pervy Mike Shermer has an entirely separate Skeptic organization for me to shun. It's true, I shunned him for being dumb long before I knew about any pervy accusations, but every little bit helps. Also a shame that James Randi (who gave his name to yet a third skeptic organization) turned a blind eye to Shermer being 'a bad boy on occasion'.)

Seems like I'm down on all the skeptical organizations, but hey it's just some of the people and the organizations that suck. Not the ideas or the truth of the matter. And possibly CFI/CSI has taken a small step to suck less... and can stay in my will.

Step 0: Own a copy of Arkham House's 1947 collection of poetry, Dark of the Moon with the first state DJ.

Step 1: Bid on 3 copies of Arkham House's 1947 collection of poetry, Dark of the Moon. One copy with the first state DJ, one with the 2nd state DJ, one with no DJ.

Step 2: Win auction for $144. With hammer gauging and shipping: $186.03

Step 3: List a copy of Arkham House's 1947 collection of poetry, Dark of the Moon with the first state DJ on Ebay. Set a reserve of $125, and a Buy it Now price of $200.

Step 4: Sell it through Buy It Now for $200.

Step 5: Enjoy two free copies of Arkham House's 1947 collection of poetry, Dark of the Moon, one with the 2nd state DJ not previously owned.

Step 6: Gloat brazenly on Dreamwidth.

The Business recounts a slice of life in an up-and-coming executive in the eponymous organization. It's a fictional(?) millennia old organization devoted to making money and amassing power. Not particularly secretive, but they don't make waves. Given its age and the nature of compound interest, The Business is well-funded and thinks big. On the current business plan is to find a modestly sized country and acquire it for business purposes. Being a Banks novel, it's populated by oddballs, strange details, and crackling turns of phrase. Lots of Machiavellian plots within The Business as different executives jockey for benefits both business-related and personal (and many of them can barely distinguish the difference). I enjoyed it, but felt the loose ends got wrapped up much too rapidly at the end.

While I don't want to minimize how awful this is, it reminds me a lot of 2000 when we also elected an incompetent moron. All that cost us was our budget surplus, one or two hundred thousand dead brown civilians, and a few thousand dead American soldiers. We got through that, right? Right?

It will likely cost $260 million more to create the much needed high speed rail link for travellers to get from Merced to Bakersfield. This is a 5% increase on the initial $5 billion segment.

"The construction is running more than two years behind schedule, though the rail authority has said it has enough “float” to complete the work on time. Its own funding plan shows that it will not finish until 2019. The original plan was to compete the work in 2017, when federal grants expire."

But at least the project has raised $0 in private funding. Of course, such funding is not expected until "the system is generating positive cash flow." I should live so long.

Just checked E*TRADE's estimate of my dividends, etc. It's like I have an average worker from Kyrgyzstan working just for me. If I lived in Kyrgyzstan, I could retire.






If I climb the ladder to Greece or Mexico, you may never see me again.

For decades, workers have been worried that automation and robotics would steal their jobs, and although it hasn't happened wholesale, we seem to be edging closer to realizing that future.

And it still remains an open question what the result is:

NF: In a thought experiment, you imagine an android that can do any job a human can. What would the implications be for society?
AM: One far-future scenario is something like a digital Athens, where the citizens are free to pursue their enlightened lives supported not by an army of human slaves but by automated technologies.

But the other scenario is something like dystopian science fiction, where a fairly small core of elites own the capital and the androids, and are walled off from the rest of society where people live without a lot of opportunity.

Recent history seems to be showing the gap between the haves and have-nots widening, which suggests we're headed for the dystopic version.

But while most of the focus has been on, say, robots taking over manufacturing jobs -- and soon, maybe, robots taking over burger-flipping, and other service jobs -- SciAm published an interesting Forum essay that makes me think about the more data economy in the same terms.

Interestingly, the online title is "How to Prevent the End of Economic Growth" while the print version is "The End of Economic Growth?"

Last September e-commerce giant Amazon acquired Twitch, a live-streaming video company, for $970 million. Not long ago a new billion-dollar company would have been a boon to job creation. Yet Twitch employs just 170 workers.

...

Whereas in 2013 IBM and Dell employed 431,212 and 108,800 workers, respectively, Facebook employed only 8,348 as of last September.

The reason these businesses spin off so few jobs is that they require so little capital to get started. According to a recent survey of 96 mobile app developers, for example, the average cost to develop an app was $6,453. Instant-messaging software firm WhatsApp started with a relatively meager $250,000; it employed just 55 workers at the time Facebook announced it was buying the company for $19 billion.

Just ponder the mismatch in those two numbers.

Again, the trope of yesteryear is that robots and automation increase efficiency, so that a handful of robots and a human overseer can do the job of 20 factory workers, making 19 employees superfluous.

But computer science and the internet have also made the information economy efficient. A few dozen employees can generate a billion dollars of value.

It would be nice to think that this tremendous value was just sort of being created, even better than pulling diamonds out of the ground through mining. To some extent this is probably true, and the pie is getting higher.

But I think there's a limit to that, and these grotesque deals are random lightning strikes that are creating -illionaire haves, and leaving behind relative have-nots. And as the spread continues, how do we navigate the course towards utopia?

Finally, while digital technologies may create fewer jobs than previous innovations, they also substantially reduce the amount of money it takes to start a new digital business—and that will make it possible for more people to become entrepreneurs. Indeed, self-employment might become the new normal. The challenge for economic policy is to create an environment that rewards and encourages more entrepreneurial risk taking. A basic guaranteed income, for instance, would help by capping the downside to entrepreneurial failure while boosting spending and combating inequality.

It might well be the answer, but don't hold your breath.

Front lawn torn out. Railroad ties spiked down with rebar. Earth moved. Decomposed granite surface. Manzanita, phormium, and a line of trailing rosemary along the front terrace.

Boy are my arms tired from writing the check to the guys that did all that work.