The Minds of the People

So I was sitting here doing my taxes for hours on end this weekend.  While I was taking a break between cursing congress for being so stupid and trying to finish I had a thought.  (I will later write about the stupidity of tax law as it is conceived of in the united states.)  The thought was as follows:

"Whatever you do, you must be consistent."

Now let me explain what this means before I get to the application of which I thought.  Basically it means you have to have a political philosophy and voting/implementation/beliefs that are consistent.  I think this is best shown by discussing a counter-example: "A person who wants the government to provide health care but refuses to sacrifice to pay for it."

Now you know that I am not a huge fan of health care reform as it currently stands however the most vile aspect of this reform is that people refuse to sacrifice (a.k.a. pay) for their fair share of the pot.  Ideologs are this way.  Now this is bad mostly because it is like an al-a-carte way of picking your voting record which leads to gridlock and stupidity in Washington.  (See this article for a good start-up on this.)  How can someone represent your interests if you interests have no consistency?  Basically if you want to preach 'equal access to health care for all' but then refuse to give up your benefits through you union then you part of the problem.

So now for the example I thought of while doing my taxes, basically I asked myself: 'In what universe does it make sense to have a tax system this ridiculous that a really smart person cannot figure out their own taxes?'  Well there are two systems of taxation broadly.  One is one that taxes little.  You keep what you make mostly.  The other end is tweaking the taxes to affect behavior as if there is some magic combination that is most 'fair'.  However can you for instance be in the former camp and believe the government should provide free health care.  You can't.  Pure and simple yet there are people there.  I don't want to do into the economics of taxation but there is a lot I could say in this area and won't.

So what is the problem to solve here?  Be consistent.  If you want large government looking into your every action in life then don't be shocked when they look into some aspect you didn't think they would.  If you want the government to be hands off then stop saying you want universal health care.  If you say you want the ability to retire at 40 and not work then stop voting for people who continue to tax investments and earnings.  If you want to tax my earnings and benefits then don't be surprised when the government comes after yours.  Just have a consistent philosophy, it will make you easier to govern and maybe the gridlock in Washington will at least support the will of the people.

Please check your Brains at the Door

Gotta to be honest.... WTF.

When will the government learn that propping up the housing market is hurting the recovery?  Also when did we have a national memorandum that housing was too important and the government should help everyone pay?  When am I going to get my rent bailout?  What is most frustrating is that all of these programs are just to get democrats to win.  Gosh I hate politics.

Helmet Head

So I will reveal a little about myself in this posting.  Yes, I live in King county in Washington State.  No big surprise there...

So most that know me would be unsurprised that I am against bicycle helmet laws.  I think it should be my choice whether I should or not wear a helmet.  Well in King County the department of health (no idea what they actual do) enforce a helmet law.  Now let me say I think it is a good idea to wear a helmet and I do, however I feel like it should be a personal choice.  I also 100% support health insurance company's option to not pay medical expenses on a bicycle if you are NOT wearing a helmet.  I think that is fair because it allows you to craft a policy which covers your lifestyle but I digress.

So anyway the booklet they give you when you buy your bike says there are 1000 injuries on a bike this year (way under the actual number based on the shittiness of drivers around here) and that 750 of them are head injuries (a claim I set out to prove wrong).  For reference here is the organization that puts out the booklet.

(Ok, first of all why does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have a section on bicycles?  You can't even ride a bike on the highway.  This is another example of government bloat.  If I was elected president I would at least make sure all of this shit was in the correct places.)  So the NHTSA has a booklet on helmet laws, one of the things it says is that helmets are the best way to avoid head injuries.  Really no shit.  Do apples fall down or up?  Please don't keep me on the edge of my seat.  What would do better (no cycling?) putting a huge foam #1 hand on your head.  Come on we pay for this shit?  (Again I completely encourage people to wear helmets, including children but making it required is stupid.)  Well they conducted a study which included statistics on helmet use, summary here (really who pays for this stuff?).  Basically a lot of people don't wear  them.  Which is interesting to me given how many people use them around here.  Also interesting is that helmets cost too much was a major factor for a lot of people (maybe if the government stopped legislating this the cost would go down or make it optional).  Here comes the bicycle helmet tax break (I am sure it already exists ).  (I am glad we have tax code for bicycle tires by the way too.  Does anyone think the cost of applying this portion of the tax code outweighs the benefits?)

There is a couple of interesting links on this site about helmets and various other bike laws.  I have to say to Seattle, 'There are other preventable injuries why single out this one to legislate on.  For instance, use cameras to ensure safe driving speeds, outlaw the sale of tobacco and alcohol, etc.  Why pick on one, it seems stupid.'

Anyway I finally found the law (it took forever).  What is frustrating is that all of the research is on child deaths and injuries yet the law applies to all people.  Why should someone else put their morality on me?  What if I want to live on the edge?  People can still sky-dive can they not.

Now let me summarize the other side of the coin because the intent has value and I don't want to trivialize that.  Basically the law is meant to protect people from themselves.  If they decide not to wear a helmet the city has stepped in and said that it is important enough that everyone be safe that they have a law.  I mean who wants their neighbor to be a vegetable because of brain damage.  Most accidents with bicycles happen because of bad drivers (in cars).  And since the city acknowledges that it will not properly regulate the drivers in the area they are trying to mitigate the risks when they do hit bicyclists.  The law also affects emergency rooms because that is where you will be taken once hit and the helmet is seen as a required cost to prevent the city from picking up the bill for putting your head back together.

I have already stated my thoughts on this.  I would wear one anyway but I don't feel like I should be forced to do it.

I am America

So I recently read "I Am America and So Can You" on my recent trip to Las Vegas.  My recommendation: skip it.  The book was actually pretty thin in comedy.  It seems like most of the entertainment value from Stephen Colbert and his writers is made for television.  It seems like they just didn't transfer to the page.  Basically I was disappointed, I didn't laugh out loud as much as I did from "America the book".  I found most of the over the top conservative statements needed something more.  Also the running commentary (like during the 'Word' segment on the show) was too sparse, too irrelevant, and not funny.  It was distracting mostly.  I feel like this book was pushed by a publisher who was like, milk it for more money.  I feel the best part of the book was the shameless plugging for it on the show.  Anyway as I said, skip it.  You'll be glad you did.

P(x_n | x_(n-k) = x_n) ...

So I was in Vegas recently and was interested in the Roulette tables.  So they display a list of the most recent spins of the wheel.  So one thing I noticed is that almost all had at least a pair (many had more).  So what is the probability of this?  Could you use this to game the system (some people believe so).  The lists I saw had 14 elements on them.  So the probability of all of them being different is (assuming statistically independent runs):

Product of (38)!/((38-14)!(38^14)).  (There are only 38 possible outcomes.) Which is: 0.064394.

Sounds to me like a bad game. If you always ran the last 14 numbers (all on the board) and the payout on the field is only 30x, then after 2 spins you are in the hole even if you win.  Sounds like a bad deal.  So I did also notice that about 40% of the boards had a double spin within the last 5 elements.  So if you always played the last 5 and always one once in every 5 spins then you would make money.  So the probability of no repeats in 5 spins is: 0.76018.  So the probability (statistically) is 0.24.  So this means (from my informal data collection) that the probability of winning on the last 5 numbers is higher than it should be.  However this could be a data collection problem.

I will say this is similar to the birthday problem which is:  What is the probability of any pair of people having the same birthday in the room.  I have included a small table to help you out.  (Remember there is 365 days in 1 year.)  (This assumes all days are equally likely which is not true, and also people tend to group with other people like them which is dependent on birthday.  For instance if you a star hockey player and you are in a room with other hockey players the probabilities go WAY up.)

Two people : 0.27%
4 People : 1.64%
10 People : 11.70%
15 People : 25.29%
22 People : 50.71%  (Yes, you only need 22 people to have 50% probability of a double birthday.)

I would like to say however that the best thing to do whenever you are gambling is to walk away.  The house always wins.

Lack of Ladies

So those that follow my permanent pages (that links at the top of the blog) know that I have been watching a course called "Global Population Growth" on academicearth.org.  (I am on lecture 17 of 24 for reference.)  Well recently the conversation has been about the lack of ladies in India and China.  Well to my surprise the economist has a couple articles on it this week:

1. Header Article - Overview of  the problem.
2. Personal Article - By a Women there.
3. Leader Article - Main Article.

What is interesting to me is how much focus t here is on this.  I will say in general this course is REALLY interesting.  It is amazing to me how much of history is distorted.  I strongly suggest that you download the audio and listen to it on the way to work.  Apparently the current lack of ladies in China is nothing compared to Eastern Europe in previous generations.  I think 150:100 was quoted but I could be wrong.  What is also interesting is that the female infanticide is so rooted in history everywhere.  Recently (lecture 17) has discussed the difference between land inheritance in Europe and in China and why that affected the future colonization (both for with Europe having lots of men for armies and against where china was largely army devoid).

Anyway I thought it was interesting that the economist had a huge article on this just as I am learning about online.

3/8/09 - Added 3rd article in list.

Long days as work mean short posts.

So I haven't had a lot of time to write so I thought I would say a couple of things about a couple of articles and make a couple of comments about the health care debate.  Since I know you are all enthralled with what I write.

• Article: Link.  It seems all chic to state that the government is broken.  However as this article points out partisan is good because it prevents us from being at the whims of the populace and people only seem to complain when they can't get their projects through.
• Article: Link.  It seems like people all voting themselves more benefits at the expense of me.  It is really frustrating.  It is amazing how much pensions are underfunded and how often politicians cave into state unions.

Also I have been reading a lot about the new health care plan.  Basically all I have to say is that we need politicians to accept economic reality.  Money has to come from somewhere.  I also strongly urge them to not 'reconcile' the bill.  It they do that there will be significant problems.  Most people will likely not be re-elected (not a bad thing in my book) and we will be straddled with a monstrous mess.  You can't limit premium increases or else you will run everyone out of the market and then the only player in town will be the central government.  This is exactly like prop 13.  You can't limit market forces without significantly messing it up.  Also, why can't insurance companies charge women more?  They cost more.  Auto insurance companies charge me more than women my age.  Why isn't that a campaign issue?  Also we need a health system that provides family planning and other reproductive benefits.  It is for the benefit of society.  Any health care legislation without that is doomed to irrelevance.  No matter what your personal choice is about this, we as a society need to face the fact that we have to provide that.

Cruising on the Ocean

So here is a way to waste time.  I have grown tired of the Olympics already.  They never seem to show what I want to watch (SHOW ME CURLING).  Anyway.  So I was surfing CNBC to find a live feed because curling was on, unfortunately they don't have a free online viewer, but I came across their video archive.

The following video is about the cruise industry (which is apparently a multi-billion dollar industry).  What is interesting is to watch the video and learn how much the company makes on different aspects of the cruise.  I have to say I honestly have no interest in taking a cruise.  Basically the cruise looks like a bore and the ship is trying to nickel and dime you the entire time (which is true, watch the video).

What struck me most was the port of call section of the video.  They interview a guy from the chamber of commerce from a small island.  He was basically talking about the money they make.  It is amazing how much money small towns can make on the cruise ships.  What is more troubling to me is that the town IS a port of call for THAT ship.  If the ship were to disappear the town would collapse overnight.  Additionally the amount of money brought in is so large that it completely throws off the local economy.  Now this happens all the time.  There are thousands of towns that are one shop towns where if a major company moved out of the area tons of jobs would be lost.  However it seems more perverse here.  The cruise ship 'partners' with the people on land and takes about 50% of the cost of the tours and stuff.  Thus if the locals were to demand more money the ship could just threaten to not come by anymore.  Seems like a situation all around.  The video ends with some shots of cruise ships being made (way awesome).  To me this video basically says two things: 1) don't invest in cruise ships currently and 2) don't come because they seem like something I would not like.  Additional piece of information for the video.  Calling at a port in Alaska is $50 a person.  Isn't that incredible.

Do no evil, unless, uh, that one time...

So I am sure almost everyone has heard of Buzz by now but for all the wrong reasons.  I think there is a lot that can be said about this situation but I am going to take an engineering perspective on this.  What I find most interesting is the consequences of what Google did.

For those who don't know, Google has decided again to try to enter the social networking market.  The first attempt failed pretty bad.  I mean who still have an Orkut account?  So Google in an effort to quickly gain a bunch of users tacked their newest attempt into their Gmail application.  So what happened?  They auto-added everyone to service and automatically exposed all that information to the world.  What I find is interesting is the accidental things, like since the most contacted people were exposed to the world spouses could find out about infidelities, bosses could find out about recent contacts with recruiters, and what is worrisome is that Mini-Microsoft may have been exposed.  I find it interesting the legal ramifications of this.

So how does an engineer get into this problem and what can be done to prevent it.  Well I think this comes from the same tunnel vision that produces poor user experiences.  So it is well known that engineers design products that they want.  Engineers are tinkerers.  So I want a widget or program that does what I want.  Other things are that the user experience is not the importance to most engineers.  For instance most projects I start are never about a neat user experience or non-engineer experience, I am interested in the algorithm behind the machine learning or the new searching algorithm.

Well I think this is likely the problem with Buzz: Engineers developed a program they wanted.  They got to the end and thought, hey this is great who wouldn't want this?  (I have similar thoughts about things I write.)  It also seems like this was pushed very hard from a 'make a profit' perspective.  It is commonly thought at this time that social networking is the way to large ad profits.  Which may be true.  If you like or may like something then your friends are likely to like them.  So you have engineers who didn't step back to say, 'how will this affect people' and 'should we do X or Y' and you have a company who is really trying to break into social networking.  This is what I think was the problem.  It is likely a neat idea.  I would love a place where I can have all my social networking stuff in one place.  However I don't feel like Buzz is the answer.  For reference I have turned it off as quickly as possible.

So how do other companies mitigate these things?  For one, you never turn on stuff like that by default.  The second is a process which looks at the customer experience.  I know I think a lot about how people use my work and how to make their experience better.  I think it is a situation where you need to assume everyone is not like you.  So what would someone who thinks differently than you think of X.  this helps a lot.  I just think it is an interesting thing.  I think Buzz will fall into the same trash bin as Orkut and in this case it is completely the fault of whomever enabled this by default.  At the end of the day companies that think they can force their users into something they don't want usually lose, I feel Google may have done that to themselves.

You get a house, you get a house, everyone gets a house.

There are just so many examples of 'bad government' policies I could blog for years.  So what is it this time?  Multiple news sources have reported that Obama has decided to use some tarp funds to help significantly underwater home owners.  It should be noted that this will only help in states like California, Nevada, Florida, etc.  Which also happen to be states where the democrats are either hoping to save or pick up seats.  (Well they are planning in a lot of places but those are a few hot spots, coincidence?  Though they are targeting districts in lots of states so it may be just that.  However you can't help but notice that Harry Reid may lose and Obama announced in Nevada...)

So while researching this I came across a couple of interesting articles about (affordable) housing and homelessness.  (Interesting result from the article on affordable housing is that it costs $600k for the red tape and bureaucracy in San Fransisco to buy a house.  This is before you even buy the land.  Incredible.  It is under the 'Cost of "Right to Build"' section.)

Let me say the biggest problem with a lot of home related issues is that housing is propped up by the central government.  Basically through tax benefits.  I would really like it if there was a rent benefit.  You can deduct taxes and interest and I get to deduct my rent.  This is an area where the government should really equalize the playing field.

There is research to suggest that when people own a house they are more likely to take an interest in the area, upkeep their property, etc.  However this misses the fact that it forces a lot of people out of housing or forces them to borrow heavily to afford the house.  (This is like the minimum wage removing low-paying jobs.)  This is a very bad situation.  (Not to mention that government intervention into forcing banks to give more loans to lower income people was a contributing factor to the current crisis.)  Basically the housing isn't affordable in many of these states (which is why no one is buying the houses).  The biggest problem that the government doesn't realize is that whenever they give a grant of say $X to someone to buy a house, the seller just raises the cost by $X.  Additionally supply of houses and the demand for houses should be allowed to equalize.  Blargh.  I'll stop ranting about this and focus another posting on this specifically.

In regards to the homelessness portion of the problem, the biggest problem is that local governments outlaw various aspects of being homeless.  This causes the homeless people to have criminal records. 
All this does is cut off more opportunities for employment to these people.  This is a kind of negative re-enforcing loop where one problems leads to another until the person is in the situation they are in completely because of the situation they are in.  It should be noted the failed anti-drug policies of the United States cause the exact same problem.  While I do not want a druggie to be driving a semi on the interstate, does this mean they should be cut out of all jobs?  (Drug policy is a huge problem and will be the subject of many future posts.)

At the end of the day the money is only 1.5B.  I mean how much is a billion anymore?  The deficit is was 12T right now right?  So what is 1.5B.  I just wish that if they were going to bail out people like this that I would get my bailout.