Author: Muttrox

NYT’s Ethicist column last week talked about blogging. Not surprsingly, he got it completely wrong.

Here’s the question:

I interview high-school seniors who apply to my alma mater. I routinely Google these students and discovered that one posted information on his blog that reflects poorly on him. May I ask him about the blog? May I mention it to the university? Should it affect the score I give him?

The answer features a couple of doozies, “You would not read someone’s old-fashioned pen-and-paper diary without consent; you should regard a blog similarly.” Um, sure. Except a diary is usually kept locked away somewhere, not published for everyone in the world to see. And the answer presumes that a blog is a diary. I humbly submit Muttroxia as a counter-example — I sincerely hope no one thinks these ridiculous posts are my deepest darkest secrets and feelings.

What did the university think? “[He] checked with the university and was told not to ask the student about the blog but to include its URL with his report.” Sure, that’s ethical. It’s not OK for an interviewer to get a full picture of the student, but it is for the university? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as Aristotle opined.

For what it’s worth, I think it is not only fair for the interviewer to look at the blog, but admirable. The interviewer is not a formal official of the college. Their job is to get a fuller picture and a subjective portrait that overworked officials might not be able to. Examing the public record is fulfilling that duty. (Mrs. Muttrox, who actually does this, disagrees.)

P.S. Although his column is good Sunday morning entertainment, you should know that Randy Cohen is not a real ethicist in any way. He’s a bright guy who found a good niche in the newspaper advice field. If you disagree with him, you have just as much formal training as he does, which is to say, none.

No matter how hard you try, you will never be one hundredth as cool as this. And oh yeah, I was in a little band called Queen.

OK, OK, My readers don’t have Times Select. Brian May is one of the contributing authors to their new cosmology blog. How cool is that?

The New York Times had an entertaining article on why playing the lottery is worth it. It agrees with my point of view. One dollar now and then is a cheap price to play for the fun of dreaming about winning.

But it also included this gaffe:

Large rewards make most people reckless, whether they’re on the winning or losing end. A 2003 University of Vermont study found that lottery players who said they preferred to receive potential winnings in annuity payments — generally thought to be safer than receiving the money all at once, in a lump sum — often changed their minds when they actually won. And the higher the jackpot, the more likely people were to prefer a lump-sum payout, the researchers found. (Mr. Nabors chose a lump sum.)

Yes, people change their mind. They should. Taking the lump sum is a smarter thing to do. It’s not being greedy, it’s being prudent.

Ever wonder how the exact payout amount is determined? It’s pretty straightforward financial calculations, figuring out the present value of those annual payments. As always, the key input is the interest rate. And for this, they use a very conservative number. Why? Because the lottery has to invest in state bonds and other very conservative investments, so from their point of view, that is appropriate. However, you as a private investor, can do better in the market (in most cases). You have investment options available to you that the state does not. Therefore, you can generate a higher rate of return. Which means you get more money by taking the lump sum up front and investing it wisely.

Happy birthday to me — thanks for the wishes all! To celebrate, I officially started wearing glasses today. Gads. Combined with just a tinge of grey hair on the temples, there is no doubt I have been graduated to the next phase of life.

And to cap off the fun, when I came back from lunch I left the keys in the car. Running. *Sigh*

God I love getting older.

We recently bought a new refrigerator. Things have changed in the refrigerator industry, I’ll tell you that. For all the gimmicks, most of the modern refrigerator designs are clearly worse.

Freezers ought to be on the bottom. That’s common sense. Heat rises. Therefore, the cold stuff goes below. Yet, new refrigerators have the freezer area on top or on the side.

Side by side is another bad design choice. Ideally, the interior of the refrigerator is just open space that you can configure to meet your needs. But a side by side design puts a big vertical barrier in the middle. This reduces how you can arrange items in there.

The problem is compounded by building in all kinds of specific compartments for specific kinds of food. Here’s the milk area, and here’s the vegetable area, and here’s the fruits, and the butter, etc. You know what, why don’t you let me put my food where I feel like putting my food. It’s all the same freakin’ temperature, what’s the difference?

The biggest gimmick is the ice and water dispensers. If you look inside the refrigerator, it’s shocking how much room the machinery takes up. On some models, 20% of the total space is taken up getting the water and ice to the outside. And what do you get for that? The water never tastes good. The depression is never big enough to fit a normal glass. Oh, but you save a miniscule amount of energy by not opening the door. Whoopee.

Stainless steel is another one. What is the point of stainless steel? It makes your kitchen looks industrial. It gets dirty instantly, and you can’t even clean it with a normal cleaning solution. Why would anyone get stainless steel? They would get it because now everyone has stainless steel, so that’s how you have a “nice” looking kitchen, where “nice” is what all the other people have.

And the price… the cost of any refrigerator above the basic block model is incredible. When my friend told me how much he paid for his, I practically laughed in his face. Then we went shopping, and I ended up spending even more.

You’re usually right, that’s what happens.

Assuming is usually correct. You save a lot of time and energy and keep yourself from looking like an idiot. If you go more than ten minutes without assuming something, you have severe brain damage. That’s what separates you from an infant, you’ve been in the world long enough to make good assumptions.

Also, there’s no “we” in team. Unless you turn the M upside-down.

(This one’s been sitting around for a while. It’s in response to a November 6, 2006 editorial, so it’s not very timely at all. But what the heck.)

This op-ed demonstrates why sociology is not considered a “hard” science. The errors abound.

1) 99% is not the standard significance threshold in science, 95% is.
2) It’s easy to count penny jars accurately. It’s called being careful. It’s especially not hard to count penny jars when you have million dollar budgets.
3) He spends some time stating how four different counts produce four different numbers, and suggests averaging them. Three paragraphs later, he ignores all this to say that in Washington’s 2004 race, 1,373,361 votes didn’t beat 1,373,232 votes by enough, so it shouldn’t count.
4) While it’s vaguely true that recounting may get you slightly different numbers, that’s not where the issues lie. The issues are not implementing a counting methodology, but having an agreed upon counting methodology. Do hanging chads count or not? Are absentee ballots with insufficient postage valid or not? If someone waited 12 hours to vote and couldn’t because of broken machines, should they get to vote? If someone was incorrectly purged from the voter polls, does their vote count? If they voted in the wrong precint, does it count? If they were confused by a butterfly ballot, can their vote be re-assigned to who they obviously meant to vote for? If a voter doesn’t have the correct ID, even though they are a legal voter, does it count? etc. Those are the questions that lead to recount after recount.
5) The proposed remedy of do-it-again is just plain insane.
6) I’m a statistics person, but statistics are not the way to hold elections. A 99% certainty level (or a p=0.01) means that about 1 in 100 times, you get the wrong answer and are OK with it. 99% is not enough here.

The answer is agreed upon counting methodologies. Execution may not be easy, but it is staightforward and auditable. Given reasonable time and money, the counting will always be accurate.

Fantastic legal correspondence, from somethingawful.com All real.

My lawyer, Leonard “J.” Crabs, has advised me to exercise my 16th Amendment rights on this issue. He said it’s “more than three times better” than the standard fifth Amendment, so my chances of winning the lawsuit instantly tripled. I don’t know what Congress’ power to collect income tax has to do with your email, but I’m not a lawyer like Mr. Crabs is. That’s why I pay him big bucks (plus bus fare).

Not only do we intend on fighting your lawsuit in court, we additionally plan on suing ourselves once your lawsuit is invariably thrown out on the grounds that you people are dangerously incompetent in virtually every aspect of life. We plan on suing ourselves for successfully not being successfully sued by you, therefore creating another grievous case of “defamation of character , libel or slander” since our upcoming legal victory over your company will create the public opinion that your company is completely staffed by subterranean mole people who know nothing about the law. You may consider yourself the “head subterranean mole person” if you so desire, or the CEO of Mole People if you’re into brevity.

Surreal conversation between Bjork and P Diddy

Would you like to get an entire operating system built for $3-6,000? This idiot is trying.

A lottery winner who didn’t blow it all. An interesting contrast to the usual winners.

Massachusetts be so smartest!

No. This isn’t real. It can’t be real. Is it real? I think it’s not real. Bob Dylan does Dr. Seuss.

This is the standard shower control in many gyms and hotels:

This is about the worst controller their ever could be. A simple person might look at this and think, hmm… the big pointy thing is pointing to hot. It must be very hot! No, simple person, this setting means “Off.: This shower is so special, its pointer does not work like every other big pointer in the entire world that points towards something. No, this pointer, points away! It is not like a clock, or a highway exit sign, or a mouse pointer, or a one way sign. It is special! Why? I haven’t the least idea.

Oh, and for a bonus there is no way to adjust water pressure.

Last summer we finally got a big TV. An HDTV actually. It’s great, but the HD part is dissapointing. The image has never looked that great. We use TiVo, which explains it. TiVo doesn’t work with HDTV. (Their new box does, but it’s $650.) So I figured the image wasn’t that great because we watch everything through TiVo. Except… well, when I watched through the direct input, it was better, but still not that great. Not as great as everyone else’s at least. Then my father (who has the same setup) told me that he had the cable guy out, and it turned out it had been wired wrong during installation.

On the first visit, the guy pokes around and doesn’t find anything. He thinks the signal is degraded because of all the weird wiring, and we need to get the outside box looked at. (The last owner of the house was a “Do it Yourself” guy, and often he did it himself wrong. Every freakin’ room in this house has cable jacks, splitters in rooms, cables going in the walls between rooms, up through the basement, it’s crazy.)

I called Comcast to schedule someone to look at the outside box. They say they need to send someone inside first. But, sez I, you already have, that’s what the last guy just came for. But he didn’t write it in his notes. But, sez I, I’m telling you what he said. Sir, we have to send someone to check the inside. We repeat that a few times, until yellz I, you people are a #$@

(Click here for Part 1, which sets up this post.)

Take another look at this graph:

It sure would be nice if we were on Path I, wouldn’t it? How do we know what path we’re on, or how could we make an intelligent guess? Where do these lines come from anyhow?

There is a lot of uncertainty about what the future may hold. So three different sets of assumptions are used, with different estimates of productivity growth, birth rate, immigration, etc. All three estimates are fairly conservative, which is good. We’d rather be surprised with something good than something bad, and we shouldn’t blithely assume that the good times today will continue. It’s worth examining some of these assumptions, since they affect so many political and economic decisions about our country’s future. If it turns out all three projections are overly-optimistic, then we’re all in big trouble. If it turns out that we’re on path I, then there is truly no Social Security issue — we might even be able to reduce payroll taxes a bit.

To see the main assumptions that underly these three curves, scroll to the table at the end of this page. It’s well-worth clicking there to get a feel of the ranges we’re talking about.

According to David Langer, model I has historically proven to be the most accurate. (I can’t find the original research, but this interview speaks to it.) He has also found that the numbers that underly those projections are made by political appointees, not independent actuaries and demographers.

All the numerical assumptions are important, but the most important is probably the productivity growth rate of the US economy. The numbers are 1.4% (pessimistic projection), 1.7% (“medium” projection, that’s the basis of the 2042 date), and 2.0% (optimistic projection).

(The productivity number, among other things, helps to address that the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is shrinking. We’re at 3.3:1 right now, and that number is declining. This sounds very worrisome, but the magic of productivity is that each worker produces more value as time goes on. If you truly feel this is an issue, you have to wonder how it is that we went from a ratio of over 100:1 to today’s number without the world ending. In fact, if you look at the historical trends, we’ve been below 4:1 for over 30 years now.)

Admittedly, I am way out of my depth to even try and forecast the future. But I will anyhow. I am encouraged by this quote:

“The federal government’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that productivity rates in the nonfarm sector improved at a 2.3% average pace from 1947 through 2003. Adjusting for the gap of 0.2 percentage points between the productivity growth of the nonfarm business sector and the economy as a whole still leaves productivity across the economy growing by a healthy 2.1% over the postwar period. That historical record convinces economist Dean Baker, from the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, that a productivity growth rate of 2.0% a year is a “very reasonable” assumption.”

(By the way, Dean Bakers blog is always interesting. Check it out.)

Below are the annual productivity growth numbers for the USA, since 1948, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Year Annual Productivity Growth Rate
1948 2.8
1949 3.3
1950 6.7
1951 2.7
1952 1.8
1953 2.3
1954 1.9
1955 4.2
1956 -0.8
1957 2.6
1958 2.2
1959 3.8
1960 1.2
1961 3.1
1962 4.5
1963 3.5
1964 3
1965 3.1
1966 3.6
1967 1.7
1968 3.4
1969 0.1
1970 1.5
1971 4
1972 3.3
1973 3.1
1974 -1.5
1975 2.7
1976 3.3
1977 1.6
1978 1.3
1979 -0.3
1980 -0.2
1981 1.4
1982 -1.1
1983 4.5
1984 2
1985 1.6
1986 3.1
1987 0.5
1988 1.7
1989 0.7
1990 1.9
1991 1.6
1992 4.1
1993 0.4
1994 1.1
1995 0.5
1996 2.7
1997 1.6
1998 2.8
1999 2.9
2000 2.8
2001 2.5
2002 4.1
2003 3.7
2004 3
2005 2.3
2006 2.1

This averages 2.27%. The SSA’s optimistic prediction is 2.0%. The historical average is even more optimistic than the optimistic number used by the SSA! I’m not an actuary, there are undoubtedly other factors at work here, they might turn out to be much more right than I. But all else being equal, you would think the historical average of the last 58 years might be a starting point. Or at least not considered “out of bounds” when it comes to projections.

I don’t know about you, but that makes me feel like there’s a good chance we’re on Path I.

We’re big fans of the all-you-can-eat Chinese Buffet. It’s great with young children.

First, hygiene standards aren’t particularly high. Kids getting noodles and such all over the floor is just the price of business, a generous tip is enough.*

Second, there’s no waiting. As soon as you sit down, you get right up again to get your food. With kids, that’s a huge factor, the in-and-out time.

What’s my problem? The drinks. You sit down, and get your food, but someone comes by to get the drink order. That’s a separate charge. Then you have to depend on the service for refills, and of course service is not the focus of these places. We often find ourselves vainly searching around for the one waitress to refill the drinks.

The answer is obvious. The buffet should be all-you-can-eat and all-you-can-drink! It’s easier for patrons, it’s easier for staff, and it fits right in with the unlimited consumption theme. Just throw a Coke machine up near the food and let the customers at it.

*How much should you tip when the staff doesn’t wait on you? I’m doing most of the work here. On the hand, per my tipping theory, I should tip more at the cheap places. I usually do 10% rounded up to the nearest dollar.