Here's my prediction for the 2016 presidential election.
Charlie Crist (D-FL) goes to war with Chris Christie (R-NJ) as both parties double down on "electability" after only allowing independents to vote in their primaries.
The suicide rate for journalists goes through the roof as they struggle to get the names straight.
The average voter refers to them as "the fat one" and "you mean that closest homo?"
The election ultimately comes down to Charlie's home state, FL, where half the voters are senior citizens who can't distinguish the names on the ballot.
Luckily for Charlie he's the governor of FL and has pulled a "Jeb," rigging the election in his favor.
Chris Christie petitions the Supreme Court to overturn the result and they think they did, but an 80-year old Scalia is charged with writing the opinion. The senile old man, entering his 25th year of suffering from Alzheimer's, writes "Charlie Crist" when he meant "Chris Christie" ensuring Charlie becomes the first gay president of the U.S.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
I think I'm starting to understand Medicine
I've always been puzzled at how much "health research" money goes into developing drugs and understanding the biochemistry of the body. Shouldn't we spend more money thinking about how to get people to actually take up our current medical knowledge to use--getting people to exercise more, actually take their pills, eat healthier, and practice mindfulness and other good psychological practices.
This letter to the editor to the NYTimes helped me understand why we don't:
Re “Yes, Economics Is a Science” (Op-Ed, Oct. 21): ...
It is good to hear that economics is entering a phase when rigorous analysis and empirical testing will become the norm. . . . Scholars of physics, chemistry and medicine can study the movement of atomic particles or lab mice without any concern that the particles and the mice are interested in the results. . . .
DAVID C. WROBEL
New York, Oct. 21, 2013
The writer is a lawyer.
This letter to the editor to the NYTimes helped me understand why we don't:
Re “Yes, Economics Is a Science” (Op-Ed, Oct. 21): ...
It is good to hear that economics is entering a phase when rigorous analysis and empirical testing will become the norm. . . . Scholars of physics, chemistry and medicine can study the movement of atomic particles or lab mice without any concern that the particles and the mice are interested in the results. . . .
DAVID C. WROBEL
New York, Oct. 21, 2013
The writer is a lawyer.
Medical research isn't about understanding how to make people healthy, it is about understanding mice!
Friday, November 1, 2013
Abortion Rights back in the spotlight
The Supreme Court ruled today that people have a right to abortions, invalidating centuries of precedent that people have to pay for services like surgery and tax preparation.
In the case, Fluke vs Holder, argued pro se by Georgetown law graduate and “slut” Sandra Fluke, the plaintiff argued that she has “abortion rights” as established in Row v. Wade. Since she had to drive a long distance and pay more than she wanted to get the abortion, her rights were being unconstitutionally trampled on by the market.
In a reversal of precedent the court agreed with Ms. Fluke, rejected the Obama administration’s argument that people had to pay for goods and service like food, tablet computers and prime real estate and abortion did not have a special place in U.S. law.
Well, it does now.
Next week the court will hear Cook vs. Fanboys Limited, a case where Apple fanboys claim they have a right to upgrade their tablets for free, at Apple’s expense, due to their “medically documented obsession with Apple products,” a DSM-VI certified psychological disorder. Pundits predict the court will be confused about what it is exactly that a “tablet” does.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
NYTranslated: Does music make you successful?
Is Music the Key to Success?
by Joanne Lipman, translated by Steve White
Condoleeza Rice, the chief advisor to George W. Bush, the least successful president in recent memory, was a trained concert pianist. Alan Greenspan, the man who inflated the housing bubble as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, also played music as a child. Other people you have never heard of, the fat numbers gay at MSNBC, and the least deserving Best Director winner of all time also play or played music.
I know correlation is not causation, but in this case we'll just assume it is: music training makes people successful. I know because I asked a bunch of successful people who played music if music made them successful. They said maybe it had something to do with it now that I mention it.
You might ask why I asked people I knew were successful and who play music. Doesn't that beg the question on the correlation. Yes, but I was scared that if I asked successful people who didn't play music (most of them) that they might not attribute their success to music. I was even more afraid to talk to average people who played music (i.e. the vast majority) because it might force me to change my mind.
So, yes, I can't offer evidence for why music makes you smart, but I can offer a half-baked theory filled with buzzwords. Music is about collaboration, except when you play solo like most of the people I talked to. It focuses your mind, like mindfulness training except not as well. And it to play you have to listen and listening is good. I'll stop because you are probably convinced at this point.
Mr. Greenspan told me that the probability that so many high achievers played music in school is unlikely to be coincidence. Sociologists I consulted pointed out that everyone on my list was white or from an affluent household, and in most cases both, but I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with their success.
So let me clarify. Music won't turn you into a star in your field. That probably requires hard work . . . in your field. But music education should be subsidized heavily so rich white kids can attribute their success to their violin and ignore the underlying social inequalities it represents.
by Joanne Lipman, translated by Steve White
Condoleeza Rice, the chief advisor to George W. Bush, the least successful president in recent memory, was a trained concert pianist. Alan Greenspan, the man who inflated the housing bubble as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, also played music as a child. Other people you have never heard of, the fat numbers gay at MSNBC, and the least deserving Best Director winner of all time also play or played music.
I know correlation is not causation, but in this case we'll just assume it is: music training makes people successful. I know because I asked a bunch of successful people who played music if music made them successful. They said maybe it had something to do with it now that I mention it.
You might ask why I asked people I knew were successful and who play music. Doesn't that beg the question on the correlation. Yes, but I was scared that if I asked successful people who didn't play music (most of them) that they might not attribute their success to music. I was even more afraid to talk to average people who played music (i.e. the vast majority) because it might force me to change my mind.
So, yes, I can't offer evidence for why music makes you smart, but I can offer a half-baked theory filled with buzzwords. Music is about collaboration, except when you play solo like most of the people I talked to. It focuses your mind, like mindfulness training except not as well. And it to play you have to listen and listening is good. I'll stop because you are probably convinced at this point.
Mr. Greenspan told me that the probability that so many high achievers played music in school is unlikely to be coincidence. Sociologists I consulted pointed out that everyone on my list was white or from an affluent household, and in most cases both, but I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with their success.
So let me clarify. Music won't turn you into a star in your field. That probably requires hard work . . . in your field. But music education should be subsidized heavily so rich white kids can attribute their success to their violin and ignore the underlying social inequalities it represents.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Is a home run just a home run?
In sabermetrics, the statistical analysis of baseball, there is a lot of work done to estimate the value of players to team. How valuable is a player who hits .330 with an OBP of .387 with 12 HR? Is he more valuable than someone hitting .347 but with just a .365 OBP and 2 HR?
To make life simple sabermetricians generally try to answer questions like this by focusing on the player and his hits, walks, etc. and ignore what team he plays for and where he bats in the lineup. Stats like RBIs and runs depend on what other players do--unless you hit a home run someone needs to bat you in, and likewise you need someone on base to generate RBIs.
Traditionally this criticism is brushed aside as unimportant. The goal of asking "who is more valuable?" is to find our who is better and that question doesn't hinge on how good the other players are, does it?
But a home run isn't just a home run. The more people who are on base, the more runs you score when you hit a home run. Whether you play for a good offensive team or a bad one could have a big impact on how many runs a home run tends to be worth.
In fact, it DOES have a big impact on how valuable a player is by up to 40%. Replacing a replacement level hitter with Mike Trout would turn the Marlins' terrible offense (515 runs) into a merely bad one (584 runs predicted) for a gain of 69 runs. Doing the same trick for the Red Sox's potent offense could push a strong offense (853 runs) into the stratosphere (949 runs) for a gain of 96 runs.
96 runs is not "approximately" the same as 69 runs. It's important to take context into account when thinking about value.
To make life simple sabermetricians generally try to answer questions like this by focusing on the player and his hits, walks, etc. and ignore what team he plays for and where he bats in the lineup. Stats like RBIs and runs depend on what other players do--unless you hit a home run someone needs to bat you in, and likewise you need someone on base to generate RBIs.
Traditionally this criticism is brushed aside as unimportant. The goal of asking "who is more valuable?" is to find our who is better and that question doesn't hinge on how good the other players are, does it?
But a home run isn't just a home run. The more people who are on base, the more runs you score when you hit a home run. Whether you play for a good offensive team or a bad one could have a big impact on how many runs a home run tends to be worth.
In fact, it DOES have a big impact on how valuable a player is by up to 40%. Replacing a replacement level hitter with Mike Trout would turn the Marlins' terrible offense (515 runs) into a merely bad one (584 runs predicted) for a gain of 69 runs. Doing the same trick for the Red Sox's potent offense could push a strong offense (853 runs) into the stratosphere (949 runs) for a gain of 96 runs.
96 runs is not "approximately" the same as 69 runs. It's important to take context into account when thinking about value.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Why edX is a failure
When MIT announced MITx I went on the record saying it will be a major flop.
No one had any idea what it was supposed to accomplish but across a wide range of goals it seemed doomed to failure.
Is it an educational gym, providing resources to help you build mental muscle?
Is it a personal trainer, providing you advice on how to train?
Is it a means to signal how smart you are?
Or a networking tool, the main function of a residential college?
It looks like the leadership is mostly hoping to be some combination of gym and signaling device, weighted toward gym. You can get certificates for passing classes, but most of the resources are going into developing tools. Look at the job postings:
Devops Engineer (2x)
Front-end Developer (2x)
Director of Services
Program Manager (2x)
Test Engineer
Software Engineer
Principal Software Engineer
It looks like 70% of their employees are programmers and the other 30% are administrators. Where are the educators? Evidently they aren't that important.
After a year and a half, MITx is well on its way to flopping.
No one had any idea what it was supposed to accomplish but across a wide range of goals it seemed doomed to failure.
Is it an educational gym, providing resources to help you build mental muscle?
Is it a personal trainer, providing you advice on how to train?
Is it a means to signal how smart you are?
Or a networking tool, the main function of a residential college?
It looks like the leadership is mostly hoping to be some combination of gym and signaling device, weighted toward gym. You can get certificates for passing classes, but most of the resources are going into developing tools. Look at the job postings:
Devops Engineer (2x)
Front-end Developer (2x)
Director of Services
Program Manager (2x)
Test Engineer
Software Engineer
Principal Software Engineer
It looks like 70% of their employees are programmers and the other 30% are administrators. Where are the educators? Evidently they aren't that important.
After a year and a half, MITx is well on its way to flopping.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Jindal: We need Low-isiana Standards
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana announced his opposition to Common Core, an initiative led by 45 state governments to develop common, high standards for our nation's primary and secondary schools.
Jindal decried the "federalization" of education and pushed the state's board of education to avoid damaging the state's reputation as the second dumbest in the nation.
He urged teachers and students in the state to help "put the Low back into Low-isiana. We need Low standards, not D.C. standards." He suggested that Mississippi can pass his state in high school graduation rate if the tests asked students to write in complete sentences or do basic geometry while other states kept in place their comically low bars for high school graduation.
In comments with reporters after the press conference Jindal lamented that "we're just a bunch of dumb hicks in this state . . . let's face it, my dad grew up in India and more people understand his English than mine."
Jindal decried the "federalization" of education and pushed the state's board of education to avoid damaging the state's reputation as the second dumbest in the nation.
He urged teachers and students in the state to help "put the Low back into Low-isiana. We need Low standards, not D.C. standards." He suggested that Mississippi can pass his state in high school graduation rate if the tests asked students to write in complete sentences or do basic geometry while other states kept in place their comically low bars for high school graduation.
In comments with reporters after the press conference Jindal lamented that "we're just a bunch of dumb hicks in this state . . . let's face it, my dad grew up in India and more people understand his English than mine."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)