The Elegance of Efficiency. More Mediocrity NOW!


I'm smashing up some concrete steps so I can repair them by pouring fresh concrete, and noting that the previous fellow (or hardy concrete pouring gal c1911-1950) did not have the benefit of Quickrete premixed bags to which I just add water, mix in wheelbarrow, and pour.  

They probably had limited concrete expertise as I'm finding big chunks of rock, no rebar material (metal to help strengthen the hardened concrete), and even a glass bottle buried in the steps.  Even I wouldn't toss in a bottle…but….

But the point is that that hardy concoction worked well for many, many decades.   It was a mediocre job but it was the RIGHT job.   Probably close to the same project lifespan as if they'd had the world's BEST concrete people working on the project – and even if the BEST concrete people's job would have lasted forever, it's likely somebody might have come in to remodel or otherwise destroy the "perfect" job.

The moral of the story is that in most cases the "perfect" job is NOT THE BEST THING TO DO!  In almost all endeavors it's better to have much higher levels of mediocre production than a modest level of high class production. 

"But would you want a doctor who is removing your spleen to believe in your principle of mediocrity?"  You ask, expecting me to say …. "that is an exception".

 It's not an exception and neither is national defense spending, which is absurdly expensive partly for political reasons but mostly because mediocrity is not valued highly enough in this venue either. 

I say we need MORE mediocrity in almost ALL things, especially those where risk aversion is most expensive such as national defense and offense, health care, and social security – our triple threat national budget breakers.  

Most of the world lives (and dies) with very modest levels of health care.  Here in the luxury world we can live a few years longer thanks to super advanced medical procedures, though most of  us squander those benefits with lifestyle decisions like smoking, overeating, and poor excersize habits.

The case for the massive interventions and high level expensive healthcare options we insist on in the first world is not only questionable from a practical standpoint due to very low ROI for high level interventions – it's questionable from a moral one – at least until the majority of people in the world have *basic* health care.

Homeopathy – it doesn’t work so why do so many people believe in it?


This is a very nice clear thinking explanation of why smart people believe in nonsensical remedies like homeopathy.      In his book "Why people believe weird things", Shermer cleverly points out that many of our perceptions of how the world works come from childhood experiences and observations and contexts.  Later, rather than truly apply critical thinking to our notions, most of us simply work to rationalize those childhood perceptions using a scientific method tool box.     I'd suggest a good test of a clear thinking person is that they will, over time, collect evidence about their cherished beliefs and will tend to change their mind about a variety of things based on that growing body of emperical evidence.

“With enough money … current technology could compute the billions of neurons in the brain”


Thanks to Politech for pointing out this remarkable attempt to Blueprint the Human Brain using high speed computing.   I'll be very surprised if we can't duplicate human style thinking within a generation.  In fact I'm optimistic that machines will so far exceed our abilities that many complex problems will have solutions available to us as part of this process.  I'm not nearly as optimistic that we'll accept/implement these solutions.   Many pressing global problems are solvable NOW, but the forces of ignorance, selfishness, and politics prevent the implementation.

Mission Impossible III – the secret of the rabbit’s foot NOT REVEALED HERE!


Though NOT to be confused with the superb TV series which had a sophistication and charm notoriously lacking in all 3 Mission films, MI III is fun and fairly clever with one excellent plot twist I won't reveal here.

Calling it "action packed" would be an understatement. It's a (PG 13!) orgy of torture, murders, extrajudicial killings, bombings, explosions, implanted head detonators, defibrillators, and …..  Katie Holmes/Tom Cruise marriage references.

I could certainly believe Seymour Hoffman as an evil international bad guy, and Lawrence Fishburn as IMF spymaster, and even Tom Cruise as super spy, but what was HARD TO BELIEVE was how close Tom's real life beau Katie Holmes looks to his movie beau Michelle Monaghan.
katieORmichelle.JPG

Scary, right?

Which brings me back to the film. Outtakes have revealed that the China made "Rabbits Foot" which was the subject of great interest to bad and good guys alike is a super sensitive biometric identification device that can help Tom determine if the girl he's with is actually Katie or Michelle. Without it Tom's pending marriage would be at risk. Given the multi billion success of the Cruise film empire palimony is incredibly expensive, helping to set the Rabbit's Foot's price tag, which WAS mentioned in the film, at $680 million.

Money well spent I'd say.

Home Again Pet ID System? You call this appropriate technology?


Is it just me or is this due for the idiot invention of the year award?

HomeAgain® is an advanced pet identification and retrieval system. A microchip the size of a grain of rice with a unique identification code that is implanted between the shoulder blades of your pet. Then your pet needs to be enrolled with the HomeAgain® Pet Recovery Service. HomeAgain® maintains a national database that is available 24-hours daily, 365 days a year. If your pet is ever lost, they can be scanned at animal shelters or veterinary clinics. Your pet’s identification number is called in to HomeAgain® (1-866-PET-ID24), and you are notified immediately.

… For those interested I have a simpler solution. 1) Get your OWN phone number etched onto a $2-5 dog tag 2) Hang it on your pet 3) Send me $10 for saving you from the HomeAgain database fees for life.

OK, so if the pet loses his collar my system doesn’t work but how many people finding a lost pet with no collar are going to SCAN them?

UPDATE: Based on the rather overwhelming support for chips I’m admitting I must be wrong about this.

People and/or/for/non Profit?


Time Magazine:

Last month Gates-funded scientists announced that they had created the technology to manufacture artemisinic acid synthetically. Within five years, the cost of a lifesaving supply is expected to drop from $2.40 to 25 cents. Lead researcher Jay Keasling says it would not have been possible without a $43 million Gates grant. "I had companies call me and say, 'This is great, but we can't give you any money. We can't make a profit on this,'" he says.

I tend to be in the crowd that says profit is a great motivator to get companies to do bigger and better things, in turn raising the standards for most people and societies that intersect with those businesses.    At first glance the quote above indicates that in this case profit was getting in the way of optimizing development of new drugs where it will do the most good – in the developing world fighting easy-to-cure diseases or conditions like dehydration that kill millions every year.   But why didn't the Govts of those nations pony up for this effort?    Since the pharmaceutical industry was NOT the beneficiary of this was it reasonable to expect them to bear the entire financial burden?

Since the $43 million from the Gates foundation basically started out as profits distributed from Microsoft to Bill Gates, who in turn funded this life saving effort, we need to be cautious about saying profits are the problem here since they were the solution here as well.   Thus one could argue, and I think I would, that without a capitalistic infrastructure to create this wealth it's unlikely we'd see this development at all.

But most important is this question – how do we find the MOST effective mechanisms to create innovations on this scale?   I think the new breed of corporate foundations are part of the answer because they apply many of the successful principles of business to development projects.  Combine this growing force with tax and other incentives for companies that use their brainpower and expertise innovating for the broad social good.

And as for us everyday folks?  What can we do?  We can stop looking so narrowly at our own little niches, and instead look to the low hanging fruit solutions such as increased support for global health care.  We can broaden our perspective to a global one and recognize that we have to make small sacrifices in an effort to save entire generations who are threatened with disease and starvation but for the lack of simple remedies.   Even the most selfish person should realize that the satisfaction that comes from helping those in need is generally a much more profound experience than almost any other.

Darfur and the media


George Clooney deserves a lot of credit for bringing the media back on track about developments in what is arguably the world's most newsworthy and troubled place – Darfur, Sudan.    Unlike Rwanda the media has not ignored Darfur, but as with Rwanda the dangers, complexities, and lack of interest in USA have led to under-reporting which in turn sends politicians a signal that they don't have to act.

However it does not reflect well on the media or on us as media consumers that all it took was a bit of Clooney star power to snap this tragic story back to the top of the news where it should be.

Today's development is encouraging.  The Government of Sudan has accepted the peace agreement that could bring an end to horrible violence between Government sponsored militias and rebel forces.    As with many conflicts there are millions of regular people trapped in violence between bad Governments and groups of fighters with questionable agendas.

Darfur Conflict at Wikipedia

News about Darfur

Tipping point of choices leading to actions.


Malcolm Gladwell, the clever author of "Blink" and "The Tipping Point", spoke to Webmasterworld Boston. One observation was that having too many choices can inhibit our actions, as in the case where a company that offered FEWER retirement plans found this INCREASED participation.

Noting how many super applications Yahoo has been spinning out over the past few years I'm wondering if other users, like me, are simply overwhelmed with the choices and therefore NOT taking advantage of what appears to be the best suite of options in the online universe.

I stopped using Yahoo 360 not because of problems – it's excellent – but because there are only so many routines to absorb when they are not part of your core set of work tools or interests.  Also, unlike Myspace, 360 did not seem to be creating an "exploding community" and thus time spent setting it up might have been wasted if it fell off the map as a community place.

I think I'm like many users who are not yet ready to tie into highly personalized programs though I'm getting ready for that now that I want to tap more effectively into RSS and the power of online communities.

Yahoo 360 (and my Yahoo) are such good tools that I'm planning to go back and figure out how to use each more effectively, but the trick as a user is to pick the best combination of quality and community.   Good applications that have small or shrinking communities are problematic for social reasons.  Bad applications with big communities have problems as well, though for different reasons.

Nuclear Power – More Needed ASAP


Even Senator Kennedy of Mass was on the radio a few days ago saying how we needed to take a new look at expanding the USA's nuclear power framework. 

Wow – when Kennedy starts talking nuclear power I think it should be the long needed wakeup call for the "head in the sand" crowd that continues to insist the dangers outweigh the benefits.  

They don't.  It's not even close.  Europe's electricity is mostly from nuclear plants, and they – tightly packed into small areas –  have a LOT more to worry about in terms of a meltdown than we well-dispersed Americans.   

Of course there is risk as there is with all power technologies, but it's been exaggerated by irrationality and "fear of the unknown".    China's consumption is rising and exploding.   This demand is unlikely to be met with even the most innovative alternative energy programs.

Ironically I think some of the same folks who are lobbying for greenhouse gas reductions are lobbying against more nuclear power.    They are letting politics and (largely faulty) ideas about the economy of capitalism prejudice good science and analysis of risk and reward.